|
No,
Minister
Editorial
by Chief Editor VVi
Well
in a matter of a few days it has become apparent that the Prime Minister has
appointed another lame duck minister to VAC.
In two recent interviews with the media, Jean-Pierre
Blackburn made
the following comments:
“(He)
said the charter is already under revision. He expects it to be completed by
the end of the year.”
“We
cannot say yes to every request because there is always a cost associated to
every request. We have to be reasonable, but at the same time, we need to
protect our veterans who did so much for us,”
These
unfathomably illogical statements demonstrate that Mr Blackburn is not
qualified for his position. Tragically
for the veterans community, Mr Blackburn seems bent on pursuing the same
passive approach to his new role as that of Greg Thompson, who achieved
nothing of significance during his term in office.
The
NVC has supposedly been under review since it came into effect in 2006.
VAC has received over 200 recommendations from various advisory
groups, veterans’ groups and Parliamentary committees.
Despite having the authority to make changes Mr Thompson did nothing.
Now Mr Blackburn plans to squander another 12 months weighing his
options.
This
is clearly an example of how these men have failed to understand the military
culture that they supposedly agreed to serve.
For example, the CF did not require 12 months to send a contingent to
Haiti (Operation HESTIA). If the
CF operated in this fashion, then it would not be serving Canada to the best
of its ability. Canada routinely
expects the CF to conduct operations with little time for planning and
preparation, yet ministers require inordinate amounts of time to consider
similar activities. If you
expect the CF to respond quickly and at short notice, then to show your
respect do the same. Despite
many statements that the CF is over extended, it is still expected to conduct
additional operations as it is all part of the unconditional service expected
of the government. Why can not
politicians provide unconditional service in return?
Instead
Mr Blackburn believes that it is unfair for VAC to honour applications from
veterans. He is acting more like Wilfred Keeley, the oily president of
Great Benefit Insurance of the novel “Rainmaker” by John Grisham.
His company has a policy of denying all claims until the client seeks
legal advice. So it might be
appropriate to refer to VAC as VIC, the Veterans’ Insurance Company.
Let us strip away the cracked façade and put VAC in the same category
as SISIP, which also seeks to minimise its commitments to veterans.
Restricting
its commitments has certainly been a long standing policy of VAC.
It denied the so-called peacetime veterans the same programs
guaranteed to wartime veterans, despite the fact that all were supposedly
entitled to the same things. It
is stated clearly in the Pension Act that:
“Male
and female members of the forces under this Act enjoy equality of status and
equal rights and obligations under this Act.”
I
urge Mr Blackburn to do something during the long hiatus of Parliament.
There is enough time in the coming weeks to read the NVC and all of
the recommendations. If he needs
more information, then he can contact the thousands of serving and retired
veterans including myself, who live in or near Ottawa.
I am sure that enough veterans would be willing to communicate given
the opportunity much like some of us did on 28 January for the Liberal
Roundtable on Veterans’ Affairs.
If
Mr Blackburn is incapable of doing something significant before Parliament
resumes, then I suggest that he resign and let someone more amenable fill the
position. The war that Canada is fighting is not going to wait for
anyone and there will be many more veterans returning to Canada who will need
the services of VAC, particularly if they must leave the CF.
Unless VAC provides the “exemplary” services, some of those
veterans will experience more problems that could seriously compound the
injuries that currently plague them.
Veterans
understand what is meant by the statement “not worth the rations”.
It is one of the most disrespectful comments to make about another
person. It applies to Greg
Thompson and only time will tell if it will also apply to the new minister.
Before
the Conservative Party formed the current government, this is what it said it
was going to do:
i)
A Conservative
Government will treat all veterans with respect and will create a Veteran's
Bill of Rights to ensure that all disputes involving veterans are treated
quickly, fairly and with the presumption in favour of the rights of the
veteran.
ii)
A Conservative
Government will ensure the veterans of Canada's wars and peacekeeping
operations receive their veterans' benefits and health care in a timely
fashion.
iii)
A Conservative
Government will conduct a complete review of the veterans' hospitals to
ensure that the needs of veterans are being met.
iv)
The Conservative Party
would immediately disband the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) and
replace the membership with qualified medical and military members who are
capable of adjudicating appeals on an informed basis rather than a political
basis. The VRAB would be housed in offices separate from VA offices and be in
locations as set out in the VA Regional offices (major centres).
v)
The Conservative Party
would immediately enlist the services of an Ombudsman with a mandate similar
to that of the National Defence Ombudsman.
vi)
The Conservative Party
would immediately extend Veterans Independence Program services to the widows
of all Second World War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the
Veteran died or how long they had been receiving the benefit before they
passed away.
vii)
The Conservative Party
would examine measures to ensure that National military treasures are
retained in Canada as a part of our Canadian heritage.
viii)
The Conservative Party
would immediately institute a complete overhaul of Veterans Affairs Canada
bringing it online with the needs of today's veterans of conflict and
peacekeeping missions. This would include instituting a standard of delivery
of services, i.e., reviews, payment of services, etc.
Lots
of words, but much fewer deeds.
Bottom
Line:
If
you're pissing on my leg then do not tell me it is raining.
|
