Veterans Issues - Ice Cube or Iceberg
Nov 2014
Perry Gray - Chief Editor VVi
“
When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral
authority to govern.”
Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, 18 April 2005
“
A Veteran is a Veteran is a Veteran
” (quoted by Canadian Veterans regardless of age and service)
It can be confusing for Canadians to understand the issues of the Veterans Community
because of the different perceptions given by the federal government, the media and advocates.
The federal government wants Canadians to believe that there are no serious issues and it is providing adequate
support to the Veterans Community.
Therefore issues are ice cube in size.
Advocates want Canadians to understand that the issues are much more serious and that what
has been publicised is just the tip of a very large iceberg
.
Since 1945, there has been a significant decrease in federal support for the Veterans
Community as the federal government has tried to shirk its responsibilities.
The first major example of this was the segregation of WW2 Veterans into those who served overseas and those who
served only in Canada.
A Veteran who served in Newfoundland served overseas because it did not become a Canadian
province until 1949.
The Canadian Merchant Marine was excluded because it was not part of the traditional
military forces.
The recognition of the merchant sailors came only after decades of fighting.
The next group to be excluded were the Veterans of the Korean War because it was a not a
traditional war.
Korea was the first of what has become the usual type of operations in which Canada's
military and paramilitary forces are involved. Whether it was the “Cold War”, UN operations or the more recent war
on terror, the nature of military conflict has changed drastically since 1945.
Rarely are there formal declarations of war by countries before military forces enter a conflict.
What has remained constant is the risks and threats to which the CF, the RCMP and others have been exposed.
While the CF is required to perform its duties with “unlimited liability”, there is no such terminology making
Canada and its government accountable for supporting its Veterans.
There is acknowledgement of a more limited legal responsibility, which has been constantly decreased as mentioned
above.
The very nature of the military – the seclusion of military bases, their culture, training and service – creates a
distinct difference from Canadian society.
Military personnel have little influence when it comes to where and when they serve.
They are expected to serve as required.
Unfortunately, the federal government bases its support for
Veterans on their service rather than their requirement to serve.
This is a significant distinction that should be legally and ethically challenged.
This is why the
Equitas Disabled Soldiers Funding Society was started.
It determined that the NVC provides significantly less support than previous Veterans legislation and comparable
provincial workers compensation legislation.
Dividing Veterans should be considered discrimination in accordance
with Canadian human rights legislation and provincial workers compensation.
When the media interviews Veterans, their families and advocates,
there are a number of issues discussed.
They are numerous (based on the many hundreds of recommendations submitted just on the NVC to VAC by various
committees and advisers) and it can be difficult for journalists as well as other Canadians to understand the
complexity of these issues.
At times, it seems that Veterans are advocating for different things.
This is very clearly not the case.
Veterans and their supporters are united in wanting better service
from VAC.
The only debate is about how this can be done.
Within any group, there will be different views and debate is
important to establish common ground.
Achieving consensus is challenging.
As a member of the VAC stakeholders committee, the Royal Canadian Legion consultation group and more recently the
Canada Coalition for Veterans, I can say confidently that the Veterans Community is united in wanting a better quality
of life for itself in accordance with Canadian values.
Even the Legion has changed its position with regards to the NVC.
In its annual report, the Legion stated:
“
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Dominion Command of The Royal Canadian Legion publicly withdraw its support for the
New Veterans Charter until all the flaws and gaps are amended to the satisfaction of all members of the New Veterans
Advisory Groups. The Legion should also withhold its support until the British Columbia Supreme Court rules on whether
the NVC violates the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms” (Resolution 309, page 156,
Committee Reports and Resolutions June 2014)
Veterans should never be defined as second class citizens nor
deserving less than the best that Canada can provide.
In stark contrast to the certainty of the Veterans Community, the
federal government's position is to announce that it must spend more time studying the important issues (if it bothers
to respond to media requests).
This is the same answer given to many Canadians when the government is reluctant to take action.
This is evident in the information reported by the media:
“
A spokeswoman for Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino noted that a House of Commons committee concluded in a
report last June that the majority of veterans are "well served" by the system.
The all-party veterans committee unanimously endorsed a series of recommendations, but opposition parties pulled their
support in September when the government's response failed to live up to expectations.
Even still, spokeswoman Ashlee Smith says "minister Fantino is committed to closing gaps.
" (CTV News 12 November 2014)
“
Mr. Fantino’s office didn’t act on requests to interview the minister or a government spokesman on the
issue. But inside the government, officials suggest the complaints are exaggerated, and promoted by a small group of
activists. Budgets have gone up, they note, and in fact, during Mr. Harper’s tenure, spending on Veterans Affairs
has increased at about the same rate as overall government spending. But there’s little doubt it has become a tricky
issue.
” (Globe and Mail 9 November 2014)
The federal government likes to highlight its recent initiatives as
part of its services to Veterans; however, it is relatively easy to find the flaws.
Bill C-27 would grant priority to members of the Canadian Forces who were released for medical reasons, and also allow
active and released members with at least three years of service to apply for jobs normally reserved for internal
candidates within the public service.
There are two significant problems with this bill: first, the
government is reducing the civil service (37,000 jobs cut); and second, only Veterans with the right academic
qualifications and job skills could be considered if there is a job.
VAC will only pay for vocational training so there is no support for under- or post-graduate academic courses.
University education was funded for WW2 Veterans in 1945, by the way.
Veterans Affairs, for example, will lose 872 or 24 per cent of its workforce between 2011 and 2017 and largest
proportional cut —about 32 per cent —will be among the front line workers, who provide benefits and services.
As part of its endeavour to have a balanced budget by 2015, the
federal government closed nine VAC offices.
Was it necessary to do so?
The answer is a very definite NO.
Based on its own information, VAC had sufficient funds in its budget to maintain the offices as well as funds for
other services.
Below are the operating costs of the nine offices between 2008 and 2013.
Given the amount of “lapsed spending” (funds not used by VAC and returned to the Treasury Board), there were more
than enough dollars for every office.
“
The Conservative government's $2-billion plan to help severely injured and poor veterans was greeted with muted
enthusiasm Sunday.
Veterans' advocates and opposition parties say the Tories are
attempting to deflect a political hot potato rather than ensure reform of "fundamentally flawed" system.”
(Sun News 18 September 2010)
The summary of “lapsed spending” also refutes this claim.
The total amount that was not spent for Veterans services is $1,269,239,523.00.
The federal government actually reduced spending by more than $1 billion.
(Note that the first year reported was during the final year of the last Liberal government, so $111,711,924 is not
included in the final total unspent by the Conservative government.)
The federal government provided these numbers so it can not claim
that this is a lie.
The minister, Julian Fantino, signed both documents provided below.
One expense which was not reduced was the money paid for senior
bureaucrats' bonus pay.
It is very disappointing to know that these public servants were given their bonuses for cutting services to the
Veterans Community.
“
Beyond veterans, long considered a natural constituency for Conservatives, there are signs the Tories are in trouble
with ordinary Canadians on the issue. A newly released internal poll on public perceptions of the Canadian Forces
suggests the treatment of veterans was registering strongly with respondents.
"Problems that veterans face (42 per cent) and soldiers returning home (29 per cent) were top of mind for many
Canadians when asked what they recalled about the (Canadian Armed Forces)," said the Phoneix Strategies
Perspectives survey, conducted last May, but released by National Defence online this week.
The survey of 2,025 people found more than two-thirds (67 per cent) of those asked recalled recently seeing, reading,
or hearing about issues faced by returning soldiers or their families.
That's a significant increase over 48 per cent of respondents to a similar poll conducted in 2012.”
(CP 19 November 2014)
“
The majority of Canadians don’t think Veterans Affairs Canada is doing enough for retired soldiers, according to a
survey by…er… Veterans Affairs Canada.
”
(National Post 31 January 2014)
Perry Gray is a Regular Force veteran, serving as both Publisher and Chief Editor of VVi. Perry has been with VVi for
12 years.
|