|
C-45
New Veteran Charter
Letter
to the new Minister VAC
March
13, 2006
Honourable
Gregory Thompson
Minister
of Veterans Affairs
Request
to Delay Coming into Force of C-45: Parliamentary Scrutiny and Broad-based
Stakeholder Consultation must occur as Promised by Senate and VAC
Bureaucracy
Dear
Minister Thompson
The
Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act
or C-45 passed through second and third readings of Parliament in under
five minutes on May 10, 2005. Except for a rushed 3-hour hearing conducted
by the Senate National Finance Committee on May 12th, there has
not been any
meaningful
broad-based stakeholder consultation on the legislation. Nevertheless, the
National Finance Committee, after hearing testimony from only three
opposing voices, realized that C-45 did little to meet the needs of those
disabled veterans and their families who needed assistance the most. As a
result, a promise was made by the Senate and VAC that the regulation and
policy preparation process would be comprehensive and thorough in listening
to and implementing the needs of all disabled veterans as well as
consulting with VAC stakeholders in general.
Now,
11 months after C-45 was tabled in the House of Commons, VAC bureaucrats
have once again
failed to conduct comprehensive stakeholder consultations. VAC
continues to carry on a very limited relationship with a select group of
only six veterans organizations to the exclusion of input from actual
clients of VAC, CF members at large, the families of both as well as VAC
employees and practitioners who treat veterans. Evidence indicates that
what significant input was garnered by VAC from the “Special
Six” veteran organizations, has all but been ignored.
Even
now, VAC bureaucrats are training their personnel on policies for C-45.
These policies have not undergone any
stakeholder scrutiny or consultation. VAC is acting on these policies
and yet the Governor in Council has not approved the Regulations for C-45.
As such, certain VAC bureaucrats have snubbed their noses at due process,
open democratic dialogue, the Senate as well as the new Conservative
Government which has promised openness
and accountability
in its new and much anticipated mandate.
Minister,
C-45 represents the most momentous
change in the way Canadians and the Canadian government care for
disabled veterans since the Pension
Act was created in 1916. The fact that there has been remarkably little
consultation in a process
shrouded in exclusivity and confidentiality
could become the greatest mark of shame in how Canadians treat those who
need our help the most. How
ironic that our soldiers
in Afghanistan are
sacrificing their lives to bring democracy to another nation while Canada
has abandoned those very rights
in hastily pushing through a document which will affect these disabled
veterans and their survivors for generations to come.
VAC
bureaucrats will tell you that they have created the Special Needs Advisory
Group (SNAG) to address the needs of those disabled soldiers. In truth, it
was likely the Senate that pressured VAC to create this body in early
September. SNAG is hampered by a number of factors but the principal one
being that their concerns for C-45 regulations are not being implemented.
VAC has stated that SNAG’s work will begin after the programs have come
into force.
Unfortunately,
this will be too late. As C-45 is presently written, future disabled
veterans, the RCMP and their families will suffer a most humiliating
indignity for a number of reasons:
1)
C-45 removes the lifetime disability pension paid to disabled
veterans and their
survivors
(in favour of an inadequate one time lump sum payment), thus erasing nine
decades of dignity and respect which came with receiving a lifetime
disability award,
2)
C-45 essentially removes all income support for disabled veterans
and their survivors after they have reached age 65. The Pension Act carried no such limitation. What income support is
available in C-45 (CF Income Support
Benefit) pays out less than $1200/month and claws back all other
income. Since most persons qualify for CPP and OAS after age 65, this
program is nothing more than an empty decoration,
3)
C-45 ties all but two programs to the disabled veterans being
forced
into a VAC controlled “work rehabilitation” or work placement program.
The definitions and regulations of this program are vague
and
the powers
of VAC are unprecedented
in scrutinizing the lives of the disabled veterans and their families.
Already, many Veterans and CF members are calling C-45 “CF
workfare”.
Although
all would agree that disabled persons should be given the opportunity
to work, only those lacking compassion would impose
government-stipulated ‘workfare’ to hang over the head of the medical
and financial security of a disabled veteran like a cynical bureaucrat’s
guillotine.
Current programs such as the Pension Act and SISIP do
not have
a “workfare” stipulation in order to receive disability benefits and
medical care; and,
4)
Recourse in C-45 for all but one program (lump sum payment) has been
taken out of the hands of review/appeal through the Bureau of Pension
Advocate (BPA) lawyers and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB).
Instead, the administrator of the programs, i.e. VAC, while declining
initial applications made under C-45, is the same body that adjudicates the
appeals. Because of this “administrative
review process”, VRAB, BPA and likely the federal courts will no
longer have the power to offer interpretations or decisions regarding key
VAC programs. This will force veterans to retain their own legal counsel
and attempt to pursue cases if at all possible through federal court. BPA
was established so that veterans did not need to seek private legal
counsel.
There
are many other concerns with C-45 and the bottom line is that the
legislation needs the calm and objective scrutiny of Parliamentary
committees.
Even if regulations and policies were drastically rewritten, they are
hobbled by the wording of the actual legislation.
C-45 takes away far more than it gives and this is likely why certain
bureaucrats are so desperate to put C-45 into force. Such cost savings for
the sake of a promotion on the back of disabled veterans and their families
is, frankly, disgusting.
Since
most programs in C-45 are currently duplicated in already available
programs, there is no need to hastily
put into force the regulations and legislation. VAC bureaucrats will
likely tell you otherwise. The real reasons bureaucrats have unilaterally
moved towards decreasing the benefits and limiting the appeal mechanism for
those benefits is, tragically, money.
As Volume II of the Disability
Pension Program Evaluation study prepared in July 2005 by VAC states
concerning the obligation to pay lifetime disability awards to those who
have sacrificed the most:
…the growth of
liability [to
pay disability benefits] has been significant and will continue to increase given an ever
increasing volume of pension claims from Peacetime clients in combination
with the relatively young age of the clients at the time of the pension
award.
A shift to greater
use of lump sum payments combined with customized rehabilitation services
would serve, over time, to regain control of an alarming future liability
scenario.
All
Canadians realize that the pockets of government are not endless. However,
one must question why currently serving CF members and their survivors will
receive dramatically less than their fathers and grandfathers while
suffering the same disabilities. WWII vets enjoyed comprehensive and
universal rehabilitation benefits and yet there were still veterans and
survivors/orphans who needed the lifetime disability award of
Pension Act benefits. The
same is true of current CF members. However, C-45, as agreed by the Senate
Finance Committee, fails to address the needs of those veterans disabled
for life. How can a Veteran’s Charter be allowed to ignore
the most important stakeholders in the process?
It
must be emphasized again that rewriting policy or even regulations will
not change the fundamental flaws of the actual legislation. Surely
something so important deserves some calm reflection and reconsideration.
I
implore you Minister to prevent
C-45 from coming into force as it is currently written. I ask that C-45 be
sent back to Parliamentary Committees to undergo due process, the very
foundation of democracy for which my grandfather and great grandfather died
defending and for which I was struck down.
It
is obvious that the rapidity with which the legislation was passed and the
secretive process of so-called ‘consultation’ prevented most if not all
MP’s, disabled veterans, the CF, the RCMP, their families, VAC employees,
the veteran community at large and Canadians in general from truly
understanding the details of C-45. Now is the time, to
take the time, to understand C-45. The detrimental
implications for recruiting in the CF are great once CF members and the
public understand that when they are disabled, the government will not
provide lifelong support as Canada has given over the past century.
Ironically,
C-45 does nothing to fix existing
problems and yet this was the very reason for creating C-45. Already
overwhelmed VAC employees will be forced to administer completely new and
untried programs. This will result in yet another class of veterans (post
C-45 veterans) while inflaming the discrimination that already exists
between “war veterans” and CF veterans (pre and post C-45). This
‘inequality’ is far
from the just society for which soldiers have fought and died in
serving Canada.
Please
do not hesitate to contact me. I would be willing to brief you and your
staff on these and any other matters at the earliest possible opportunity.
I offer my services to the Department (as I have over the past six years
and been ignored) and to your Office in ensuring that C-45 becomes the
legislation Canadians would want it to become.
Thank
you
Sean
Bruyea
C.c.
Senior Policy Advisor to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
Robert Smith
Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
Member of Parliament Betty Hinton
The Hon. Bill Graham
The Hon. Gilles Duceppe
The Hon. Jack Layton
Member
of Parliament Anthony Rota
The Hon. Robert Thibeault
Member of Parliament Brent St. Denis
Member of Parliament Gilles Perron
Member of Parliament Claude Bachon
Member of Parliament Peter Stoffer
_______________________________________
C-45
New Veteran Charter
Letter
to the new Minister of Defence
March 15, 2006
The
Honourable Gordon O’Connor
Minister
of National Defence
Request to
Delay Coming into Force of C-45
Dear
Minister O’Connor
I request
that you delay the coming into force of C-45 until it undergoes due process.
The Canadian
Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act or C-45 passed through second and
third readings of Parliament in under five minutes on May 10, 2005. This
legislation is the single greatest change in how Canada will treat its disabled
military members since the Pension Act was created in 1916. However, there has
been remarkably little consultation in a process shrouded in confidentiality
and unnecessary haste. How ironic that our soldiers in Afghanistan are sacrificing their lives to bring
democracy to another nation while Canada has abandoned those very rights in rushing through a document which
is intended to care for these disabled veterans and their survivors for
generations to come.
Even
now, VAC bureaucrats are training their personnel on policies for C-45 which
have also not undergone any stakeholder
scrutiny or consultation and are being implemented before
Governor-in-Council has brought into force the Regulations. It is clear that
certain VAC bureaucrats have snubbed their noses at due process, open democratic
dialogue, the Senate as well as the new Conservative Government which has
promised transparency and accountability in its new and much anticipated
mandate.
VAC
bureaucrats will tell you that they have created the Special Needs Advisory
Group (SNAG) to address the needs of those disabled soldiers but this group has
heard testimony from only five veterans, one CF and two family members. VAC has
more than 210,000 clients and there are more than 750,000 veterans in Canada.
Not
only has the C-45 process been highly dubious, C-45 itself is flawed:
1)
C-45 removes
the lifetime disability pension paid
to disabled veterans and their survivors. Bureaucrats will “wash their
hands” of the disabled veterans with a one- time lump sum payment, thus
erasing nine decades of social conscience in caring for disabled veterans and
their families for life,
2)
C-45
essentially removes all income support for disabled veterans and their survivors
after they have reached age 65. The Pension Act carried no such limitation. What income support is
available in C-45 (CF Income Support
Benefit) pays out less than $1200/month and claws back all other income.
Since most persons qualify for CPP and OAS after age 65, this program is nothing
more than an empty decoration,
3)
C-45 ties
all but two programs to the disabled veterans being forced into a VAC controlled “work rehabilitation”
program. The definitions and regulations of this program are vague and the powers of VAC are unprecedented in scrutinizing the lives of the
disabled veterans and their families. Already, many Veterans and CF members are
calling C-45 “CF workfare”. Although all would agree that
disabled persons should be given the opportunity
to work, only those lacking compassion would impose government-stipulated
‘workfare’ to hang over the head of the medical and financial security of a
disabled veteran like a cynical
bureaucrat’s guillotine. Current programs such as the Pension Act and SISIP do not have a “workfare”
stipulation in order to receive disability benefits and medical care; and,
4)
Recourse in
C-45 for all but one program (Part III-lump sum payment) has been taken out of
the hands of review/appeal through the Bureau of Pension Advocate (BPA) lawyers
and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB). Instead,
VAC will “review” cases which they initially declined. VRAB, BPA and
likely the federal courts will no longer have the power to offer interpretations
or decisions regarding key VAC programs. This will force veterans to retain their own legal counsel if possible. BPA was established in 1938 so that veterans did not need to seek
private legal counsel.
Since all significant programs in C-45 are currently duplicated in
already available and more generous programs, there is no need to hastily put into force the regulations and
legislation. VAC bureaucrats will
likely tell you otherwise but one must
question who will benefit from C-45 if not the veteran. Sacrificing key elements of a social and legal contract with the
military, which spans almost a century so that a DM or a Director meets certain
performance goals for a bonus or promotion is, frankly, disgusting.
Most Canadians realize that the pockets of government are not endless.
However, one must question why currently serving CF members and their survivors
will receive dramatically less than their peers, fathers and grandfathers while
suffering the same disabilities. Senate Finance Committee agrees that C-45 fails
to address the needs of those veterans disabled for life. How can a Veteran’s
Charter be allowed to ignore
the most important stakeholders in process let alone the programs?
C-45 cannot meet the lifetime need of disabled
veterans as it is currently written. Even
if regulations and policies were drastically rewritten, they are hobbled by the
wording of the actual legislation.
I implore
you Minister to prevent C-45 from coming into force at this juncture. I ask that
C-45 be sent back to Parliamentary Committees to undergo due process, the very
foundation of democracy for which my grandfather and great grandfather died
defending and for which I was struck down.
It is obvious that the rapidity with which the
legislation was passed and the secretive process of so-called
‘consultations’ prevented most if not all MP’s, disabled veterans, the CF,
the RCMP, their families, VAC employees, practitioners who treat the disabled,
the veteran community at large and Canadians in general from truly understanding
the details of C-45. Now is the time, to
take the time, to understand C-45. The detrimental
implications for recruiting in the CF are great and public outcry will be even
greater once CF members and the public understand that when CF members are
disabled, the government will not provide lifelong support as Canada has ensured
over the past century.
If
uncaring and insensitive bureaucrats can unilaterally remove benefits for
disabled veterans and CF members, when will it stop? Seniors, single parents,
disabled Canadians?
Ironically, C-45
does nothing to fix existing problems and yet this was the very reason for
creating C-45. Already overwhelmed VAC employees will be forced to administer
completely new and untried programs. This will result in yet another class of
veterans (post C-45 veterans) while inflaming the discrimination that already
exists between “war veterans” and CF veterans (pre and post C-45). This
‘inequality’ is far
from the just society for which soldiers have fought and died in serving
Canada.
Please do
not hesitate to contact me. I would be willing to brief your office on these and
any other matters at the earliest possible opportunity. I offer my services to
you in ensuring that C-45 becomes the legislation Canadians would want it to
become.
Thank
you most sincerely for your attention to this matter,
Sean
Bruyea
Enclosures:
Annex A-Analysis of C-45 (for MND addressees only)
cc.
Senior
Policy Advisor to MND
Howard
Marsh
Senior Special Asst, Parliamentary Affairs/Communications MND
Frances Ryan
The
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh
Member
of Parliament John Cannis
Member of Parliament Wajid Khan
Member
of Parliament Gilles Perron
Member of Parliament Claude Bachon
Member of Parliament Dawn Black
DND/CF Ombudsman
_______________________________________
C-45
New Veteran Charter
Letter
to Prime Minister Harper
March 15,
2006
The
Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime
Minister of Canada
Request
to Delay Coming into Force of C-45
Dear
Prime Minister
I
request that you delay the coming into force of C-45 until it undergoes due
process.
The
Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act
or C-45 passed through second and third readings of Parliament in under five
minutes on May 10, 2005. This legislation is the single greatest change in how
Canada will treat its disabled veterans since the Pension Act was created in
1916. However, there has been remarkably little consultation in a process
shrouded in confidentiality and unnecessary haste. How
ironic that our soldiers
in Afghanistan are
sacrificing their lives to bring democracy to another nation while Canada
has abandoned those very rights
in rushing through a document which is intended to care for these disabled
veterans and their survivors for generations to come.
Even
now, VAC bureaucrats are training their personnel on policies for C-45 which
have also not undergone any stakeholder
scrutiny or consultation and are being implemented before
Governor-in-Council has brought into force the Regulations. It is clear that
certain VAC bureaucrats have snubbed their noses at due process, open democratic
dialogue, the Senate as well as the new Conservative Government which has
promised transparency
and accountability
in its new and much anticipated mandate.
VAC
bureaucrats will tell you that they have created the Special Needs Advisory
Group (SNAG) to address the needs of those disabled soldiers but this group has
heard testimony from only five veterans, one CF and two family members. VAC has
more than 210,000 clients and there are more than 750,000 veterans in Canada.
Not
only has the C-45 process been highly dubious, C-45 itself is flawed:
1)
C-45 removes the lifetime disability
pension paid to disabled veterans and their survivors. Bureaucrats will “wash
their hands” of the disabled veterans with a one- time lump sum payment, thus
erasing nine decades of social conscience in caring for disabled veterans and
their families for life,
2)
C-45 essentially removes all income support for disabled veterans and
their survivors after they have reached age 65. The Pension Act carried no such limitation. What income support is
available in C-45 (CF Income Support
Benefit) pays out less than $1200/month and claws back all other income.
Since most persons qualify for CPP and OAS after age 65, this program is nothing
more than an empty decoration,
3)
C-45 ties all but two programs to the disabled veterans being forced into a VAC controlled “work rehabilitation”
program. The definitions and regulations of this program are vague
and
the powers
of VAC are unprecedented
in scrutinizing the lives of the disabled veterans and their families. Already,
many Veterans and CF members are calling C-45 “CF
workfare”.
Although
all would agree that disabled persons should be given the opportunity
to work, only those lacking compassion would impose government-stipulated
‘workfare’ to hang over the head of the medical and financial security of a
disabled veteran like a cynical
bureaucrat’s guillotine.
Current programs such as the Pension Act and SISIP do
not have
a “workfare” stipulation in order
to receive disability benefits and medical care; and,
4)
Recourse in C-45 for all but one program (Part III-lump sum payment) has
been taken out of the hands of review/appeal through the Bureau of Pension
Advocate (BPA) lawyers and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB). Instead,
VAC will “review” cases which they initially declined. VRAB, BPA and
likely the federal courts will no longer have the power to offer interpretations
or decisions regarding key VAC programs. This will
force veterans to retain their own legal counsel
if possible. BPA was established in 1938 so that veterans did not need to seek
private legal counsel.
Since
all significant programs in C-45 are currently duplicated in already available
and more generous programs, there is no need to hastily put into force the regulations and
legislation. VAC bureaucrats will
likely tell you otherwise but one must
question who will benefit from C-45 if not the veteran. Sacrificing key elements of a social and legal contract with the
military, which spans almost a century so that a DM or a Director meets certain
performance goals for a bonus or promotion is, frankly, disgusting.
Most
Canadians realize that the pockets of government are not endless. However, one
must question why currently serving CF members and their survivors will receive
dramatically less than their peers, fathers and grandfathers while suffering the
same disabilities. Senate Finance Committee agrees that C-45 fails to address
the needs of those veterans disabled for life. How can a Veteran’s Charter be
allowed to ignore
the most important stakeholders in process let alone the programs?
C-45
cannot meet the lifetime need of disabled veterans as it is currently written. Even
if regulations and policies were drastically rewritten, they are hobbled by the
wording of the actual legislation.
I
implore you Prime Minister to prevent
C-45 from coming into force at this juncture. I ask that C-45 be sent back to
Parliamentary Committees to undergo due process, the very foundation of
democracy for which my grandfather and great grandfather died defending and for
which I was struck down.
It
is obvious that the rapidity with which the legislation was passed and the
secretive process of so-called ‘consultations’ prevented most if not all
MP’s, disabled veterans, the CF, the RCMP, their families, VAC employees,
practitioners who treat the disabled, the veteran community at large and
Canadians in general from truly understanding the details of C-45. Now is the
time, to take the time, to understand
C-45. The detrimental implications for
recruiting in the CF are great and public outcry will be even greater once
CF members and the public understand that when CF members are disabled, the
government will not provide lifelong support as Canada has ensured over the past
century.
If
uncaring and insensitive bureaucrats can unilaterally remove benefits for
disabled veterans and CF members, when will it stop? Seniors, single parents,
disabled Canadians?
Ironically,
C-45 does nothing to fix existing
problems and yet this was the very reason for creating C-45. Already
overwhelmed VAC employees will be forced to administer completely new and
untried programs. This will result in yet another class of veterans (post C-45
veterans) while inflaming the discrimination that already exists between “war
veterans” and CF veterans (pre and post C-45). This ‘inequality’ is far
from the just society for which soldiers have fought and died in serving
Canada.
Please
do not hesitate to contact me. I would be willing to brief your office on these
and any other matters at the earliest possible opportunity. I offer my services
to you in ensuring that C-45 becomes the legislation Canadians would want it to
become.
Thank
you most sincerely for your attention to this matter,
Sean
Bruyea
_______________________________________
C-45
New Veteran Charter
Annex
A: Analysis of C-45
Failings
of C-45
The
following is a list of discrepancies and failings of C-45 as it is currently
written. These failings are in the legislation itself and no amount of amendments to regulations or policies can change these
flaws. The legislation itself must be amended:
1.
no
longer provides for a time-tested lifetime monthly disability award for disabled
veterans or their widows/orphans,
in favour of a one-time lump sum payment.
C-45 income support programs essentially end at age 65, the time when most
disabled persons and their surviving family members need the greatest
assistance.
2.
places
veterans, the Department, the Bureau of Pension Advocates and the Veterans
Review and Appeal Board in a disadvantaged and unrealistic learning curve while
continuing to process applications, reviews and appeal through the Pension Act. Not
only is C-45 flawed it is completely untested. VAC employees at all
levels are overworked with current programs. C-45 programs, as already
explained, have been hastily constructed and are being hastily implemented.
Adding C-45 programs, which in this form and timeline to the VAC repertoire of
present difficulties is a recipe for not only a public relations disaster
but veterans and families will likely be
harmed in such an environment. The planned implementation of a New Table of
Disabilities at the same time only compounds an already unworkable agenda. Of
note, it has taken the Department from 1995 to date merely to adjust to changes
brought about by Pension Reform in 1995.
3.
does
not respect existing legislation including the Department of Veterans Affairs
Act, National Defence Act and potentially the Constitution and Human Rights Act.
By treating CF members after implementation of C-45 different from current or
past veterans, this will ring very loud bells both legally and ethically in
Canada. When it is realised that many C-45 programs are “less than” current
programs and have the added injustice of “workfare” stipulations, the
injustice, both real and apparent will only grow,
4.
punishes
the disabled veteran and family for the inefficiencies of the bureaucracy. The
effective date of financial support begins not on the day the applicant applies
but when the Department finishes processing the application. Past
experience with VAC has resulted in delay times for processing applications of
up to 18 months and even longer. Even “administrative” requests have
resulted in delays of six months to one year and even more than two years in a
number of cases. The disabled veterans and their families could be relying on
the C-45 benefits as their only source of income. How will they subsist until
their application is processed? What happens if they accumulate debt for living
expenses in the meantime? C-45 does not offer retroactive payment to the date of
application like the Pension Act and SISIP. The disabled veteran and the family should not be punished
for the inefficiencies of the bureaucracy and yet this is exactly what C-45
does.
5.
fails
to take into account psychological injuries.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD alone is the single largest pensioned
condition (approximately 8,000 of 160,000 disability clients). C-45 programs,
through greater scrutiny and intrusion by the Department will alienate many of
the clients who need help the most: those with psychological injuries. It is
very unlikely those suffering severe injuries will be willing to jump through
all the steps of C-45, especially a hastily implemented “workfare” program,
6.
does
not allow for university education as part of the educational job training.
“War
Veterans” were allowed access to university training and they did not have to
be disabled to qualify. Disabled CF veterans, under exceptional circumstances were allowed to access to university
through the VAC Pensioner’s Training Regulations and SISIP. C-45 does not
allow for university under any circumstances.
7.
C-45
education training disqualifies Veterans for opportunities to approximately 50%
of Federal Public Service positions.
Priority
placement in the Federal Public Service is a cornerstone in C-45. Since
approximately 50% of Federal Public Service positions require university
education and C-45 does not provide university education, recipients of the C-45
education program will not have access to approximately 50% of the Federal
Public Service positions. As a result, disabled veterans who are forced to leave
a skilled, high wage position in the military due to their a disability will be
forced to take a lower (non-university education) paying position. Furthermore,
one must question VAC’s commitment to the priority placement of disabled
veterans in the Federal Public Service since the
VAC appears to hire very few if any disabled veterans. Rumours of a
“discomfort” felt by key bureaucrats within VAC regarding veterans working
in the Department have been emerging over the past five years,
8.
holds
post 1 April 2006 CF Veterans and their families to a higher standard than
Federal Public Servants.
Public
service employees who leave their employment qualify for access to the Public
Service Health Care Plan after two years of employment. CF members must serve 20
years if not disabled or a minimum of 10 years if disabled in order to qualify
for the same Plan. Under C-45, veterans must enter the “workfare” program to
qualify for a similar health care plan for his/her family,
9.
holds
post 1 April 2006 CF Veterans and their families to a higher standard all
other veterans.
The
“War Veteran” programs are undoubtedly more generous and comprehensive than
existing programs. The current CF programs are also more generous and equally
comprehensive than most areas of C-45 programs. This creates three clear
distinct classes of veterans with no legal or moral rationale: 1. “war
veterans”, 2. current CF veterans and 3. post C-45 CF veterans.
10.
Removes
the right of appeal through the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) with the
support of Bureau of Pension Advocates (BPA).
There are two separate parts of C-45, Part II, which is the “workfare”
gateway, and Part III, which is the lump sum benefit. When appealing a decision
for a lump sum, veterans can request the assistance of ‘free’ lawyers in BPA
for a review and appeal through VRAB. For Part II, however, there are no
‘free’ lawyers and VRAB does not have jurisdiction to hear cases related
to the majority of benefits contained in C-45. This sharply contrasts with
current programs as VRAB can hear reviews and appeals for all areas of the
Pension Act including disability awards, exceptional incapacity and attendance
allowance as well as other care and treatment issues. Removing this fundamental
and longstanding right to access a free lawyer through BPA (since 1938) must be
seriously contemplated. Veterans who are unhappy with their decisions under Part
II (“workfare”) and all the
accompanying benefits must appeal to the very department which made the initial
decision without the aid of a free
lawyer. This will likely force veterans to hire lawyers and enter the very time
consuming and expensive federal court process if at all,
11.
does
not support the Chief of Defence Staff or National Defence’s initiative on
recruiting.
Word will quickly spread amongst the public, the serving CF, veterans and
their families concerning C-45 disability programs that allow far too much
scrutiny and intrusion by the government bureaucracy in order for disabled
veterans and their families to receive benefits. The “workfare” gateway to
basic benefits and the lack of disability benefits for life will further
alienate disabled veterans, hence tarnishing the image of the government’s
attempts to assist disabled veterans. This can only further increase the
recruiting obstacles thus far encountered by the CF,
12.
fails
to take into account the input of medical specialists in key areas.
C-45 programs are centred on the concepts of medical case management and
rehabilitation and yet there is no obvious evidence that these medical
specialists let alone psychiatrists and psychologists were ever consulted on the
feasibility of C-45 programs. On a number of initiatives to include such
individuals, VAC bureaucrats have refused to allow specialists in rehabilitation
and case management to provide input or review programs associated with C-45,
13.
does
not address issues such as disabled Veterans abilities to qualify for mortgage
and other insurance benefits essential in life.
Previous veterans (WWI, II and Korea) were provided such assistance for entering
civilian life merely because they were veterans. They did not have to be
disabled. Although modern conflicts do not see nations “declaring war”, one
can easily see that the Gulf War, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan were and are
“wars”. If veterans of the Great Wars,
who served in Canada for as little as six months and were never deployed
overseas, qualified for education, mortgage and insurance benefits merely
because they wore a uniform, then surely CF members who serve in the hostile
environments of the Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are equally
deserving; and,
14.
removes
the ‘Minister’s’ obligation to provide counselling and assist applicants
and pensioners in the preparation of applications for benefits (section 81 of
the Pension Act).
Currently,
the Minister (i.e. VAC) is obligated under the Pension Act to provide
counselling and assist applicants in the preparation and post-decision phases of
an application including Departmental Reviews. VAC’s negligence and
indifference to this issue is at the root of the backlogs and problems with the
current broken disability pension application system. The Auditor General
Reports on VAC have recorded this problem since 1995.
The
Social Contract Between the Military and Canadians
Veterans
who are disabled in their service to Canada and Canadians currently apply for
disability awards through the Pension Act. Since these awards are for
disability, they are non-taxable and are paid on a monthly basis for life.
Should the veterans pass away, the spouse and orphans will receive a monthly
disability award. Furthermore, medical care and treatment are guaranteed for
recipients of disability awards under the Pension Act. These awards along with
the care and treatment of veterans have been the foundation of a social
contract between the people and the government of Canada and the serving
members of our military since 1916 when the Pension Act came into being.
In
fact, this social contract is clearly defined in the opening sections of the
Pension Act:
“…the
recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide
compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died
as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.”
It
is this section which has provided the legal protection for disabled veterans
and their families as well as the legal basis for upholding veterans’ rights
in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board as well as the Federal Courts for more
almost a century.
Noticeably
absent from C-45 is
any mention of this legal obligation
or any other definition of the social contract between disabled members and
their families, and the people and government of Canada. One must ask if the
serving CF members, the RCMP, disabled veterans and the families of all knew
that the bureaucracy had unilaterally erased almost nine decades of legal
protection and precedence? Did the bureaucracy have the right to take this
social contract away without the public or any of the stakeholders knowing?
Ignoring
Consultation
The
VAC bureaucracy and the previous Minister championed C-45 claiming that
widespread consultations occurred between the architects of C-45 at VAC and the
CF and veteran community. There is no doubt that the previous Minister and key
bureaucrats carried out a number of “briefings”. However the two-way
communication implied in “consultation” is not the same as “one-way”,
after-the-fact, information sessions known as “briefings”. Even the
briefings were not as widespread as they could have been. Veterans at large and
especially disabled veterans requested briefings in a number of cities. VAC
never followed through with the requests. Even VAC employees reported that they
were kept “in the dark”.
In
fact, the only true consultations which reportedly did occur were conducted by
some members of an advisory body called the CF-VAC Advisory Council which held
meetings in a number of important bases across Canada. They asked the CF members
in attendance whether they would prefer a lump sum payment or a lifelong monthly
disability award as provided in the Pension Act. The CF members, as reported by
one Council member who testified to the Commons Subcommittee on Veterans
Affairs, overwhelmingly rejected the lump sum payment in favour of the Pension
Act.
VAC
bureaucrats ignored this important and apparently only real consultation and
opted for the cost-savings of the lump-sum award. The CF-VAC Advisory Council
has since been dissolved and was thereby not permitted to monitor the creation
of legislation, regulations or policies for C-45.
One
must thoroughly and vehemently question a process which failed to openly consult
with RCMP members, CF members, disabled veterans, family members, veterans at
large, VAC employees and the practitioners who treat disabled CF members and
veterans.
With
whom did VAC bureaucrats actually consult?
Apparently
the leadership of six out of dozens of veterans organizations was sworn to
confidentiality from divulging any details of C-45 to their membership.
Nevertheless, VAC claims that there is widespread support for C-45 in the
veteran community and the previous Minister apparently claimed that the
“veterans are the authors of the legislation”. Given the facts, it is highly
unlikely that either of these assertions is true.
Summary
When
the key issues of unilaterally breaching the “social contract”, ignoring
consultation and the likely unconstitutional and unethical “workfare”
gateway are included in the above list, there is more than enough reason for a
new government to sit back and calmly contemplate the implications of C-45 as it
is currently written. C-45 is a complex piece of legislation with implications
at all levels of the social, legal, military and moral domains of Canadian
society. It should not have been fast-tracked and should have included solutions
to longstanding problems at VAC experienced by the more than 200,000 clients.
These problems should be corrected before bringing into force the regulations.
The legislation needs to pass through due process, the basis of the democratic
process.
|
