Promises and Expectations
Perry Grey Chief Editor
VeteranVoice.info (VVi)
This is the first in a series of
articles which are my response to an invitation to submit ideas for
the next stakeholders summit 5-6 October. There are a lot of
recommendations...and I am sure most will be ignored.
Wow,
it did not take Kent Hehr long to demonstrate that the commitments
made during the election by the Liberals are false. His decision to
send the Equitas class action back to the court room and re-appoint
Paul Vickery as the lead government lawyer is a very clear message.
It was a very short span of time from the announcement on 2
May that a letter of assurance was being drafted as a definite
indication that the government was honouring its commitment to
resolve the case to 18 May when it was announced that Kent Hehr
approved a resumption of the legal conflict. What happened in the
interim to cause an 180 degree turn in the government's position?
In taking this unexpected turn, Kent Hehr made sure that his
boss, Prime Minister Trudeau misspoke every time he used the
expression sacred obligation or social covenant with Veterans.
In layman's terms, the Prime Minister lied to all Canadians.
This is what the government intended in its commitments to the
Veterans Community: Your overarching goal will be to ensure that
our government lives up to our sacred obligation to veterans and
their families. I expect you to ensure that veterans receive the
respect, support, care, and economic opportunities they deserve. You
will ensure that we honour the service of our veterans and provide
new career opportunities, make it easier for veterans to access
services – including mental health services – and do more to support
the families of Canada’s veterans. PM J Trudeau
This was what
the Equitas Veterans agreed to do in return: “The veterans
promised to drop the litigation if Hehr provided timelines for
enacting the priorities outlined in his mandate letter. But,
according to Donald Sorochan, the lawyer representing the veterans,
the minister has been noncommittal on timelines for implementing key
promises, namely when lifetime pensions will be restored.” CBC
News18 May, 2016
This is what really happened: “There is
already sufficient evidence of the usual delays and deferments that
plagued the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
(Hehr)
also said he is dedicated to implementing all the items his mandate
letter, including lifetime pensions, but said that "veterans'
stakeholders have asked us to get this right and not rush.
The fact the Liberal government is now reverting to the same
arguments that the Conservatives acknowledged were problematic has
exasperated veterans groups.
I am bitterly disappointed that
I took some flack for trusting this government and now people are
telling me 'I told you so, the government couldn't be trusted.' They
were right," Sorochan said. "I think [Hehr's] an inexperienced
minister with little background on the veterans affairs file and his
chief of staff comes from the insurance industry where this type of
approach is common, they're motivated to increase profits," Sorochan
said.” CBC News 18 May, 2016
The minister has never bothered
to explain why the court case had to continue. The deputy minister
told me that it was necessary, but I really do not understand the
legalese. The minister has to provide a much better explanation and
the next summit is a good forum to do so.
I certainly will
be asking questions.
Nobody forced the Liberal Party to make
“promises” during the 2015 election so including commitments to
Veterans was voluntary action, which now seems more like the typical
political ploy to win an election than an honest plan of action.
Can the government really afford to waste more of our tax dollars
fighting some of the most dedicated Canadians? It certainly will
disappoint many Canadians, who expect any government to be
financially responsible, particularly after expecting Canada to
increase its national debt to achieve many of the Liberals'
objectives. It is hardly the sort of legacy to pass on to future
taxpayers.
What else will Kent Hehr or his replacement do to
renege on the commitments of 2015?
I questioned his
commitment to his mandate letter in my speech during the stakeholder
summit on 9 May. Many may have been dismayed by my belligerence. The
minister had the opportunity to respond to my speech. He spoke about
achieving all of the 15 commitments in his mandate.
He did
not provide a single example of what he has achieved.
I
contacted his office to find out exactly what has been done in his
first six months. His response is at the end of this article.
On the subject of re-opening the nine VAC offices, the minister
has stated that the office in Windsor, Ontario will open within a
year according to a letter from his office sent in February, 2016.
Yet VAC could not confirm this timeline when asked by CBC News.
Instead of wanting to “get this right”, it just seems like more
procrastination which will just further alienate the Veterans
Community. It did not take VAC more than 18 months to close the nine
offices, so why does it take more than 18 months to re-open them.
Either they serve a function or they do not.
If they should
not be re-opened in the former locations, then make that clear and
provide a reasonable explanation as to why alternates should be
selected. Meanwhile why do Veterans have to suffer with long
commutes to existing offices? This is a prime example of not
following the prime minister's directions: “make it easier for
veterans to access services – including mental health services – and
do more to support the families of Canada’s veterans.”
If the
government wants to battle Veterans in the law courts, then it
should be prepared for more, particularly one based on breach of
contract (something that Kent Hehr understands as a veteran lawyer).
“Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a
binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honoured by one
or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or
interference with the other party's performance. If the party does
not fulfill his contractual promise, or has given information to the
other party that he will not perform his duty as mentioned in the
contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to
perform the contract, he is said to breach the contract.”
“Failing to perform any term of a contract, written or oral, without
a legitimate legal excuse. This may include not completing a job,
not paying in full or on time, failure to deliver all the goods,
substituting inferior or significantly different goods, not
providing a bond when required, being late without excuse, or any
act which shows the party will not complete the work ("anticipatory
breach"). Breach of contract is one of the most common causes of law
suits for damages and/or court-ordered "specific performance" of the
contract.” http://dictionary.law.com
By repeatedly stating
that he recognises that there is a sacred obligation, the prime
minister has acknowledge the existence of a contractual obligation,
which can be recognised in a court of law. Instead, Canadians are
expected to accept failure of delivery of services and goods, the
substitution of inferior or significantly different goods and
services, being late without excuse, etc.
Veterans should not
trust any political party that fails to support its own policies and
commitments. Should any Veteran be expected to honour the onerous
terms of such legally binding commitments like “universality of
service” and “unlimited liability” if the government imposing such
conditions of service can repeatedly renege on its responsibilities?
My answer is an emphatic no.
If Kent Hehr is so dedicated
to Veterans, why did he accept another appointment as the chair of a
special cabinet committee to co-ordinate Fort McMurray aid and
reconstruction efforts. With a comfortable majority in the House of
Commons, surely there were equally qualified Liberal MP's who could
have been given this position.
It is reminiscent of
Jean-Piere Blackburn, who was MVA in 2010-2011, who only accepted
the job if he could continue as a minister of state. Neither man
seems to be dedicated to any one job, which suggests that they will
only do something as long as they get to do what they like.
This is what the Conservative Party considered as its major policies
in 2005 before winning the 2006 federal election:
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.
How many of these commitments were
accomplished?
Why does the Veterans Community have to accept
sub-standard support in return for its services to Canada? The
federal government seems content to expect much more from Canadians
than Canadians should expect from its government. If that is not a
breach of contract, then what is?
Note: This is my e-mail
and the minister’s response.
Dear Kent,
You had an
opportunity to respond to my speech on 9 May. You mentioned that you
have achieved some of the objectives from your mandate letter;
however, you did not provide any details. Would you please provide
those details and a schedule of when Veterans can expect the
remainder of your mandate to be completed. If you can not provide
this information, then would you please explain why not and what
will be required to complete all of your objectives.
I would
like to have a preliminary response by 27 May. I plan to write an
article about your mandate for publication in early June. If I have
not received any information from you, then the article will likely
be very critical because it has been hard to find any evidence of
what you repeatedly claimed to have accomplished.
Perry Gray
Editor-in-Chief Veteranvoice.info
Kent Hehr's reply:
Perry
Gray is a Regular Force veteran, serving as the Chief
Editor of VVi. Perry has been with VVi for 13 years.
|