|
|
VeteranVoice.info
VVi is
for you, all veterans, regardless of whether you belong to a
veteran organization or not. VVi is a distribution centre, a
conduit for making sure that the information you need as a veteran
is there for you in a timely fashion. Our aim is to provide a
forum for all Canadian
veterans, serving members and their families to have access to
information pertaining to veteran rights.
VVi is
an independent site,
not associated with any governmental department, agency or veteran
organization. VeteranVoice.info is maintained by independent
contributions.
|
 |
New Minister, Old Minister - what will change?
By Perry Gray, Chief Editor VVi
The minor cabinet shuffle saw the first liberal minister, Kent Hehr,
replaced by Seamus O’Reagan. Both men were rookie federal MP’s and
therefore had little experience, which begs the question why were
they selected?
There were plenty of new MP’s so some cabinet appointments were
bound to put such rookies into senior leadership positions. It is
less apparent why politicians who are Veterans were not selected. A
Veteran was appointed as parliamentary secretary to MVA, Karen
McCrimmon, who served until January 2017. Now the senior Veteran is
the deputy minister, Walt Natynczyk.
Of note, the two ministers were introduced through the media as
having medical disabilities. It is unclear whether this was to show
that they would be more empathetic to the problems of disabled
Veterans, or that Veterans should be more sympathetic to them.
What should be most important to all Canadians is what they can do
for Veterans to honour Canada’s debt to the Veterans Community.
If either minister was limited by his own conditions, then they
should have declined the position.
In my opinion, which is shared by others, Kent Hehr was not the
right candidate:
“The departing minister - Kent Hehr - faced challenges around the
cabinet table. He was a personable and welcoming face during his
visits to Charlottetown but failed to deliver on some key Liberal
election promises - except re-opening district offices. Other issues
such as post-traumatic stress disorder, homelessness and disability
pensions remain unsolved.” The Guardian (PEI) 30 August 2017
The same writer suggested that Mr O’Regan is a good choice:
“His own experiences will place him in a good position to deal with
critical issues facing our country’s veterans. They fought our
battles and now deserve the assurances that their country will look
after them in their time of need.”
I for one need more evidence before believing that Mr O’Regan will
be a good minister, particularly as Veterans deserve a great
minister, who can solve the issues that no federal minister has been
able to solve in many decades.
Was Kent Hehr MIA?
There was been a significant decrease in the public activities of
the minister in his last six months in office, which is why I asked
the above question.
He did occasionally make an appearance and participate in political
events, but it was usually to repeat the standard excuses that he
needs more time to implement his 15 point mandate.
Much of the mandate was never discussed. Instead the minister talked
about his accomplishments including increasing his staff at VAC and
the re-opening of VAC offices. Neither puts more money in Veterans
pockets nor guarantees better services from VAC.
What about the increase of ELB from 75% to 90%? Well for Veterans
earning the least amount, this 15% “raise” adds as little as $150
per month. And it is taxable.
It is a insignificant amount compared to the $6 billion that the
minister said that the government will spend on Veterans. He failed
to provide details on how this money will benefit Veterans. Based on
past government practices, some of the money may be returned to the
government’s piggy bank just to prove that the minister ran an
efficient department. That is if it actually is given to VAC first.
Veterans have to wait for VAC to loosen the purse strings for other
benefits to supplement ELB including life long pensions for pain and
suffering (a non-taxable benefit). The minister remained mute on
when this will happen.
Currently, Kent seems more concerned about winning re-election in
2019. His riding is in a Conservative stronghold and he only won
with a margin of 750 votes in 2015. Before the last election, it had
been a Conservative riding for four decades. He knows that the
Conservative Party will be “gunning” for his riding, although he
feels confident of his chances to avoid defeat.
Given that Alberta tends to vote conservatively, it is rare for a
non-conservative to win in a federal election. This trend dates back
to WW2.
There is a lot at stake for Kent Hehr. He earns more than $250,000
per year as a minister. He will also be entitled to a pension if he
is re-elected and serves until 2024.
I am sure that he disagrees with me, and he has made lots of claims
on his Facebook page. Being a social media fan does not make him a
good minister. His publicity activities reach a very small audience,
for example, he has less than 20,000 followers on Facebook. Nothing
got published after his meetings with Veterans and stakeholders,
except very brief media advisories. Of course notifications only get
published if he has a meeting. Again for such a publicity lover,
Kent really did not know how to promote himself. He really is a
small fish in a big pond!
Kent promoted his visit with veterans officials in Washington at the
end of June:
“Pleased to have spent the morning with officials from U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs & Secretary Shulkin, great
opportunity to learn & share best practices to support veterans. Had
a productive conversation with Secertary (sic) Shulkin on
veteran homelessness, mental health & career transition”
This seems like a novel concept despite the fact that VAC liaises
regularly with US, UK, Australia and other allies about Veterans.
VAC has liaison offices that are supposedly looking at best
practices; unfortunately, there seems to be a severe lack of
implementation of the best ideas.
The US has similar problems as Canada and has not been able to find
solutions for many including wait times for medical services. In
fact on 30 May, 2014, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki
resigned from office due to the fallout from the the wait time
scandal. His replacement, Robert McDonald, advised President Trump
not to privatise VA health services (so that private health care
companies would not replace public providers).
Can VAC learn anything from its American (or by extension other)
counter-part? Based on the repeated delays implementing changes or
worse ignoring problems, it is not apparent that VAC can learn much.
“I also got the opportunity to visit the Walter Reed National
Military Medical Center and learn about the multiple programs they
offer such as art therapy.” Kent Hehr
Thanks for the reminder to all Veterans that Canada does not have
one single facility offering similar services because the government
decided that having such facilities was no longer a government
responsibility.
Fun fact, the US has 152 VA medical centres. Canada has 0.
Canadian Veterans have to wait for space in generic provincial
facilities, which do not offer any programs designed specifically
for Veterans.
So Kent Hehr saw something that his government does not want
Canadians to see or have.
No need to repeat the lack of government support for Veteran career
transition since even VAC ignores a hiring priority, as usual. Or
that VAC has yet to release information on solving homelessness and
improving mental health care. After all most of the responsibilities
have been pushed to the provinces!
This Washington visit just highlighted his ignorance again…and
again. And if you know the other Canadians in the photos on the
Facebook page, they include people who have been spending a lot of
time unable to find solutions to systemic problems, but enjoying the
financial benefits and international travel perks of senior
bureaucrats.
I got the usual response when I checked for information on this
“field trip” from the VAC website:
“Your search - Secretary Shulkin - did not match any documents. No
pages were found containing "Secretary Shulkin".”
In fact, one has to spend a lot of time searching to learn what Kent
does, apart from representing his riding.
Again this is based on searching for his name in media reports and
on the VAC website.
Even for an historic even like the 100th anniversary of the Battle
of Vimy Ridge (9 April 2017), it was a challenge to find
information. The minister made sure he was in plenty of photo ops,
as usual.
Unfortunately, like many Canadians, the minister concentrated on the
sacrifices made by war-time Veterans Yes, it is great that Canada
has monuments like Vimy Ridge and there is a new museum showing the
horrors of war and this is something that we all need to understand
if there is ever a hope of ending war.
Meanwhile what about the living Veterans?
I was present when the minister gave testimony to the Commons
Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in March 2017. This was given
prior to the annual budget report. His presentation highlighted many
of the systemic problems, which continue to plague VAC. He did not
offer much in the way of real solutions or even try very hard. Much
of the time, he let his deputy minister answer questions. This
indicates how ignorant Kent Hehr is with regards to his department
and the Veterans Community. For a politician, ignorance is not
bliss.
For example, Veterans are supposedly benefiting from a priority
hiring program of the government (current levels of Veterans being
hired at 2.2% in the public service). VAC employs 115 and has only
hired 18 since the minister took office in 2015. VAC had hired a
total of 381 people and still had another 19 vacancies.. Nobody
asked him why greater priority was not given to hiring Veterans in
VAC. (see Bill C-27, the Veterans Hiring Act, for details)
Even the appointments to VRAB in June 2017 included a minority of
Veterans, and only eight of the 17 members are Veterans (CAF and
RCMP).
Why is not every new hire a Veteran?
The hirings included 113 case managers so that VAC can lower the
ratio from 1:40 to 1:25. Two things to note about case managers,
there were questions about why Saskatoon did not have a permanent
case manager (the position is filled in Regina so commuting is
required), and the response was the 2,900 clients did not warrant
one. A good explanation of how VAC calculated this arrangement was
not given. The ratio of 1:25 was also not discussed.
Fun fact, VAC decides which clients are entitled to the services of
a case manager (and other services), and determined the client
ratio. VAC can terminate services for any reason as many Veterans
know from experience.
Fun fact, only five of the 2,900 Saskatoon clients are entitled to
case management. This information surprised the committee members,
who wrongly assuming that ALL Veterans have a case manage. The
majority of Veterans have service agents, who have a much larger
number of clients. There are six employees for the other 2,895
Veterans in Saskatoon (or 1:482.5)
The minister stated that following consultations, “90% of the
recommendations into action within three years and the full suite of
changes in five”. He did not give examples of any recommendations or
why 10% were deferred (or ignored). Full suite could mean 100% or
not, the language is ambiguous.
With regards to lifetime pensions for pain and suffering, the
minister stated:
“Your veterans can expect this promise to be kept within the
four-year term of the Liberal government. I will be proud to stand
up and say we have delivered that pension option for our veterans.”
Two observations: why “your” instead of “our” or “Canadian”
Veterans; and there are not many months left of the four years, and
the minister has mentioned nothing about what to expect.
The minister believes that he is making adequate progress in
accomplishing his mandate:
“We accomplished six of those 15 things, and two of them regarding
financial security have really moved the meter a long way, and
that's according to our Veterans Ombudsman.”
Please review the 15 specific goals of his mandate and judge for
yourself whether or not they have been accomplished. Personally, I
do not trust the minister and I do not trust the ombudsman when it
comes to any facts or figures. Neither gentleman seems willing to
provide details.
Even without knowing the details, his four years is almost to the
mid-point and since he refuses to provide timelines, it is hard to
estimate when each is possibly going to be achieved.
For example, the minister stated that anyone receiving 100% of the
NVC lump sum would be given a “top up” dating back to the first year
(2006). He omitted that most Veterans receive 11% of the lump sum,
so what do they get as a “top up”?
Transition from CAF and RCMP is a major concern and the minister
addressed the issue:
“Many people in the military do their military service and transfer
successfully. Still, we have a far too large number, roughly 27%,
who struggle in some form or fashion, whether that be employment,
education, addiction, mental health, illness, or injury, and that is
why we have Veterans Affairs. That's why we need to professionalize
the release. We have a lot of work to be done. This is not going to
be solved overnight. I wish it were, but it's not.
We're working to ensure that we professionalize the release, and I
am very happy with the commitment of the Minister of National
Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and our department, who are
working together to solve these issues. It's a financial issue, a
rehab issue, a return-to-work issue, a return-to-school issue. There
are a whole host of things that are going to allow us to have more
success. Those conversations are getting detailed, and I can tell
you they're moving along.”
Fun fact, the Joint Personnel Support Unit (JPSU) has been plagued
with problems since its creation, and has had three commanding
officers in the last year (a total of six since it was established).
The latest announced his retirement this month after only three
months in the position (April-July 2017)!
This seems to indicate that the government is still doing a bad job
with the “transition phase”. This has been noted in government and
media reports, but this should not discourage Kent Hehr from
believing in “sunny ways”.
With regards to long term care, the minister mentioned that there
are about 6,400 Veterans including 600 “young” Veterans in 1,500
medical facilities. Sadly as already discussed, there are no VAC
health care institutions and the last one, St Anne de Bellevue, has
experienced many problems (yet another failure in a transition
process).
When asked about Mefloquine, the minister replied:
“Any veteran who comes forward who has an illness or injury tied to
military service will be served by our department with the best
available technology and expertise that this country can provide.”
This is one of the best examples of the minister’s ignorance. Since
provinces determine what will be provided in terms of health care,
how does he know whether ALL Veterans get the best?
The minister made some comments about his department, which really
upset me:
”I'm very proud of the Veterans Affairs staff throughout this
country, from our head office in P.E.I., where Veterans Affairs is
located, right through this country where people are working in our
various offices, our various centres, and our OSI clinics and the
like. They are highly professional public servants, highly committed
to veterans' outcomes, who are doing their job every day, and I'm
very proud of them. I'll put our case managers and their
effectiveness and their commitment to the job up against virtually
anyone you can name throughout government and throughout the private
sector.”
These are the same people who have been failing to provide adequate
support to ALL Veterans for many, many years. They are the people
who reject applications, refuse services, misinterpret policy and
often disrespect Veterans. Rarely are any punished for failing to
fulfil their mandate. All that Canadians get is political praise for
the hard work and dedication of VAC!
Of note, neither the minister nor the deputy stayed for the second
part of the meeting during which three senior bureaucrats provided
more details of current and future operations. It just seemed like
two rats leaving a sinking ship, but that is my biased impression.
Enter Another Minister
Seamus O’Regan may or may not be expected to complete the 2015
mandate from the Prime Minister. If he has the same mandate, then he
will have to be quick as there are only two years before the run-up
to the next election. Kent Hehr spent a lot of time waffling about
one very important issue, the life long pension.
My fear is that the new minister will once again ask Veterans to be
patient until he is better educated on his duties. Veterans debated
this same thing six months after Kent Hehr was appointed.
Time is a luxury, which can not be wasted. The only major change is
the appointment of the new minister, so what is his department doing
besides offering excuses for delays?
There are more issues than those identified in the 2015 mandate
letter and these include problems with the New Veterans Charter,
updating older legislation like the Pension Act, homeless Veterans,
Mefloquine and mental health.
In my opinion, it is a good thing that the federal government is
procrastinating about international peacekeeping as there are many
systemic problems that need to be fixed before Canada has to deal
with the next Somalia Incident.
The minister has already shown that he does not know very much and
seems willing to accept the information provided by his senior
bureaucrats - hook, line and sinker.
For example, he stated that:
“most ex-soldiers, when they go before the board, are successful in
their appeals.” CBC News 18 Sep 2017
He is mistaken. In 2016-17, VRAB ruled favourably in 42% of Review
decisions and 26% of Appeal decisions. Furthermore, many Veterans
remain disgruntled even if VRAB rules in their favour because the
board often does not redress all of their grievances.
If he can not get his facts and figures straight, how will he fair
with making major decisions?
Perry Gray is a
Regular Force veteran, serving as the Chief Editor of VVi. Perry has
been with VVi for 16 years.
|
|
|
Ministers First Words Ring Alarm Bells | Les premiers mots
du ministre sonnent des cloches d'alarme
Minister O'Regan's First Words Ring Alarm Bells: Liberals Must do
Better.
By Sean Bruyea
September 18, 2017 at
8:32am
VVi 19 Sep 2017
If the first public comments
of newly appointed Minister Seamus O’Regan are anything to go by,
veterans and the governing Liberals should be worried. The Trudeau
government will have to understand veterans far better. They also
should be eager to do more than they promised if they wish to
reverse seven decades of ghettoizing veterans and their families
into arbitrary castes and classes.
Minister O’Regan in his
first advertised action visited the Veterans Affairs (VAC)
bureaucracy in Charlottetown P.E.I., the only federal department
with its head office located outside Ottawa: “I decided to make it a
top priority that I get out here and meet people as quickly as I
can."
For those who have battled VAC over the years, and
sometimes decades, it is the senior bureaucracy in Charlottetown
that has been the principal source of an often dismissive and
antagonistic relationship with veterans and their families. It is
not unlike Ottawa’s paternalistic and hostile treatment of Canada’s
indigenous peoples. That the Minister thought his “top” (and first)
priority was the senior bureaucracy and not veterans, sounds a
foreboding trumpet call.
During his first visit to
Charlottetown, the Minister was briefed on the “top priority” of
“caseload” ratios as the bureaucracy refers to the number of
veterans managed by each case manager. "I've got a lot to learn”,
Minister O’Regan told CBC, “I understand that that is a big issue,
the issue of case loads [sic]". Frustratingly, “caseloads” have been
the “top priority” for VAC and its Ministers for five years or more.
I and my colleagues have been writing and speaking on this issue
since at least 2004.
In an effort to reduce these caseload
ratios, veterans have told me that local VAC officials delay months
in responding, meeting, and providing minimal follow-up services.
Some then “ditch” the veterans so that other “cases” can be likewise
quickly processed.
Any earnest Minister and sincere
government must tackle VAC’s bureaucratic culture. It denies there
is a problem, discredits those advocating for change, dismisses
suffering, obfuscates, studies, delays further, misleads media and
veterans into believing action is being taken, and finally
manipulates stakeholders into accepting wholly inadequate Band-Aid
measures. Culture at Veteran Affairs’ head office is far removed
from Ottawa’s oversight, secluded from national media attention, and
living in a dimension alien to the reality of Canada’s veterans and
their families.
Meanwhile, a host of unaddressed and often
grave problems remain.
VAC, the department mandated to care
and treat veterans and their families, has only begun to monitor
veteran suicides, but only after government was shamed by a series
of media investigations. Meanwhile, veteran pioneers, Louise Richard
and Luc Levesque, pleaded for government to study the matter…over 20
years ago.
In the 1990’s, Louise also called upon government
to monitor and help homeless veterans followed by Don Leonardo of
VeteransCanada(.ca) beginning in 2001. It wasn’t until media
embarrassment in 2014 that VAC hastily awarded a sole-source
contract for over a million dollars with questionable defined goals
and follow-up quality controls. The contract apparently provides
some impromptu assistance to select homeless veterans. Certainly the
Auditor General should have a look at this. Meanwhile, we still
don’t have an accurate and comprehensive picture of homeless
Canadian veterans, contributing causes, and substantive long-term
solutions.
None of these issues were identified in Liberal
election promises. Also not included was an overhaul of the way
veterans have their disability claims adjudicated, reviewed and
appealed. I stood beside Louise Richard in the late 1990’s, and
later Perry Gray joined by CJ Wallace of Veteranvoice.info, calling
for comprehensive changes to this demeaning and humiliating process
that makes veterans feel more like criminals than honoured Canadians
who sacrificed for all of us.
When veterans are inevitably
denied or granted insufficient recognition for their injury, they
must turn to a review and appeal process, frequently guided by
lawyers employed by the very department with which veterans are
fighting for benefits. Pre-1995, these lawyers worked in a
completely separate and independent agency preparing veterans’
claims. That model must be reconsidered.
Meanwhile, VAC
lawyers argue cases, often with very little preparation and huge
“caseloads”, to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, a body that
makes pretenses to being judicial, only when it saves money. The
Board is notoriously mismanaged and compassionately crippled. This
group of politically appointed individuals have their hands and
hearts tied by an entrenched bureaucracy that ensures more generous
aspects of legislation are quietly kept from veterans’ pleading
wounds.
These systemic injustices represent a fraction of the
tragic to-do list that never made the Liberal promise cut. For those
that have, bureaucratic delay and malice have eaten away at their
generosity. For instance, increasing veterans’ disability income
from 75% to 90% of military salary saw many veterans receive 20%
raises. The lowest paid veterans, who make up the largest single
demographic, received less than 5%. Meanwhile, annual increases have
fallen dramatically behind reality. A veteran released today with
the same disabilities at the same rank and pay level is earning 30%
more than a veteran released 20 years ago.
Veterans Affairs’
hard-hearted, stop-gap measures continue to belittle Liberal
promises of “one veteran, one standard”. Benefits are awarded based
upon arbitrary dates or heartless criteria, all in order to save
money. The Liberal promise to expand upon allowances for the most
disabled to recognize lost career prospects, denies the same benefit
and its $1100 monthly supplement to those 1,500 veterans that are
declared 100% disabled under the lifelong pension scheme. No career
impact benefit or supplement exists for these veterans. Surely if
veterans are 100% disabled, their career is impacted.
Families who care for the most disabled also will receive an
increase in a caregiver allowance. Whereas family members of
veterans with a modest lifelong pension previously were eligible,
they will no longer be eligible for the allowance even though no
such benefit exists for these family members. For those eligible,
$1000 monthly is grossly inadequate and will force many families to
juggle care of the veteran and a career, likely forfeiting
eligibility for the benefit. In effect, those family members that
work the hardest, even though their careers are often hobbled in
caring for a seriously disabled veteran, will be punished the most,
or at least benefit the least.
Principal among the promises
is the return to lifelong pensions. This will be a huge budget item
affecting more than 60,000 veterans costing billions: hence the
dilly-dallying.
The pension-promise dawdling has allowed both the
Liberals and the bureaucrats to slide through other half-promises.
Supposedly universal education for non-injured veterans has been
restricted to those veterans released after April 1, 2006, with six
years or more military service, and denied to the most disabled or
on the lowest income support program.
Liberals promised to
remove the time limit for survivors of deceased veterans to access
education and retraining. For spouses still caring for the most
disabled veterans, the bureaucracy nonsensically and callously
imposed a two-year limitation to receive career transition help, but
only for those veterans released after April 1, 2006.
The
bureaucracy controls political agendas, diminishes recognition for
service and sacrifice while demeaning veterans and their families
through soul-destroying frustration and exclusion.
To address
these and many other problems requires authentic and encompassing
change. This change necessitates Ministers confront the senior
bureaucratic culture head-on. Minister O’Regan commented in the same
CBC interview, "We've got a lot of good people who are doing good
work on behalf of veterans." If senior bureaucrats are doing "good
work", then by default, culpability lies with veterans in not
understanding what “good work” is being done on their behalf.
Patronizing veterans is the salient problem, not the solution.
Sadly, Minister O’Regan appears ready to reinforce, not resolve the
VAC cultural mess.
Sean Bruyea, vice-president of
Canadians for Accountability, has a graduate degree in public
ethics, is a retired Air Force intelligence officer, and frequent
commentator on government, military, and veterans’ issues.
Les premiers mots du ministre O'Regan sonnent des cloches d'alarme:
les libéraux doivent faire mieux.
Par Sean Bruyea
Si les premiers commentaires publics du nouveau ministre Seamus
O'Regan sont tout à fait pertinents, les vétérans et les libéraux
qui gouvernent devraient s'inquiéter. Le gouvernement Trudeau devra
bien comprendre les vétérans. Ils devraient également être désireux
de faire plus de ce qu'ils ont promis s'ils souhaitent renverser
sept décennies de vétérans en isolation et leurs familles en castes
et en classes arbitraires.
Le ministre O'Regan dans sa
première action annoncée a visité la bureaucratie des Affaires des
Anciens Combattants Canada (ACC) à Charlottetown, l'un des seuls
ministères fédéraux dont le siège social est situé à l'extérieur
d'Ottawa: " J'ai décidé de faire de la priorité absolue, de sortir
ici et de rencontrer des gens aussi vite que possible. "
Pour
ceux qui ont lutté contre ACC au fil des ans, et parfois des
décennies, c'est la bureaucratie supérieure à Charlottetown qui a
été la principale source d'une relation souvent dédaigneuse et
antagoniste avec les vétérans et leurs familles. Ce n'est pas
contraire au traitement paternaliste et hostile d'Ottawa sur les
peuples autochtones du Canada. Que le ministre a cru que sa priorité
absolue (et première) était la bureaucratie supérieure et non les
vétérans, sonne un appel de trompette.
Au cours de sa
première visite à Charlottetown, le ministre a été informé de la
«priorité absolue» des ratios «cas», car la bureaucratie se réfère
au nombre d'anciens combattants gérés par chaque gestionnaire de
cas. «J'ai beaucoup à apprendre», a déclaré le ministre O'Regan à
CBC: «Je comprends que c'est un gros problème, la question des
charges de cas [sic]». D'une manière frustrante, les «cas de
travail» ont été la «priorité absolue» pour ACC et ses ministres
pendant cinq ans ou plus. Moi et mes collègues avons écrit et parlé
sur cette question depuis au moins 2004.
Dans le but de
réduire ces taux de cas, les vétérans m'ont dit que les
fonctionnaires locaux d'ACC ont retardé des mois pour répondre, se
rencontrer et fournir des services de suivi minimaux. Quelquefois,
"abandonne" les vétérans pour que d'autres «par cas» puissent être
rapidement traités.
Un ministre sincère et un gouvernement
sincère doivent s'attaquer à la culture bureaucratique d'ACC. Cela
nie qu'il y a un problème, discrédite ceux qui préconisent le
changement, licencie les souffrances, les obscurcies, les études,
les retards supplémentaires, induit les médias et les vétérans à
croire que des mesures sont prises et, finalement, manipule les
parties prenantes pour accepter des mesures d'aide à la bande
entièrement insuffisante. Le siège de culture d’ACC est loin de la
surveillance d'Ottawa, isolé de l'attention des médias nationaux et
vivants dans une dimension étrangère à la réalité des vétérans du
Canada et de leurs familles.
Pendant ce temps, une foule de
problèmes non traités et souvent graves demeurent.
ACC, le
ministère chargé de soigner et de traiter les vétérans et leurs
familles, n'a commencé qu'à surveiller les suicides des vétérans,
mais seulement après que le gouvernement a été honteux par une série
d'enquêtes sur les médias. Pendant ce temps, les pionniers vétérans,
Louise Richard et Luc Levesque, ont plaidé pour que le gouvernement
étudie la question ... il y a plus de 20 ans.
Dans les années
1990, Louise a également demandé au gouvernement de surveiller et
d'aider les vétérans sans abri, suivis par Don Leonardo de
VétéransCanada (.ca) à partir de 2001. Ce n'était pas jusqu'à
l'embarras des médias en 2014 que ACC a rapidement remis un contrat
unique pour plus d'un million de dollars avec des objectifs définis
douteux et des contrôles de qualité de suivi. Le contrat offre
apparemment une aide improvisée pour sélectionner les vétérans abri.
Certes, le vérificateur général devrait examiner cela. Pendant ce
temps, nous n'avons toujours pas une image précise et complète des
vétérans canadiens sans abri, des causes contributives et des
solutions substantielles à long terme.
Aucune de ces
questions n'a été identifiée dans les promesses électorales
libérales. En outre, il n'y a pas eu de révision de la façon dont
les vétérans ont leurs revendications d'invalidité jugées, examinées
et appelées. Je me suis retrouvé à côté de Louise Richard à la fin
des années 1990, et plus tard, Perry Gray a rejoint CJ Wallace de
Veteranvoice.info, appelant à des changements complets à ce
processus dégradant et humiliant qui fait que les vétérans se
sentent plus comme des criminels que des Canadiens honorés qui nous
ont sacrifié pour nous tous.
Lorsque les vétérans sont
inévitablement niés ou n'ont pas reçu une reconnaissance suffisante
pour leur blessure, ils doivent se tourner vers un processus
d'examen et d'appel, souvent guidé par des avocats employés par le
ministère même avec lesquels les vétérans se battent pour des
prestations. Avant 1995, ces avocats travaillaient dans une agence
distincte et indépendante qui préparait les réclamations des
vétérans. Ce modèle doit être reconsidéré.
Pendant ce temps,
les avocats d'ACC plaident en faveur des affaires, souvent avec très
peu de préparation et d'énormes cas de travail, au Comité des
vétérans (révision et appel), un organisme qui prétend être
judiciaire, seulement lorsqu'il économise de l'argent. Le conseil
d'administration est notoirement mal géré et paralysé avec
compassion. Ce groupe d'individus nommés politiquement a les mains
et les cœurs liés par une bureaucratie enracinée qui garantit que
les aspects plus généreux de la législation restent silencieusement
liés aux plaies impliquant les vétérans.
Ces injustices
systémiques représentent une fraction de la liste des tâches
tragiques qui n'a jamais réduit la promesse libérale. Pour ceux qui
ont le retard bureaucratique et la malice ont mangé à leur
générosité. Par exemple, l'augmentation du revenu d'invalidité des
vétérans de 75% à 90% du salaire militaire a vu de nombreux vétérans
recevoir des augmentations de 20%. Les vétérans les moins payés, qui
constituent le plus grand démographique individuel, ont reçu moins
de 5%. Pendant ce temps, les hausses annuelles ont considérablement
diminué la réalité. Un vétérans libéré aujourd'hui avec les mêmes
handicaps au même niveau et niveau de rémunération gagne 30% de plus
qu'un vétéran libéré il y a 20 ans.
Les mesures d'arrêt et
les lacunes d’ACC continuent de minimiser les promesses libérales «
un vétéran, une norme ». Les avantages sont accordés en fonction de
dates arbitraires ou de critères sans coeur, tout en économisant de
l'argent. La promesse libérale visant à élargir les indemnités pour
les personnes les plus handicapées pour reconnaître les perspectives
de carrière perdue, nie le même avantage et son supplément mensuel
de 1100 $ aux 1 500 vétérans qui sont déclarés 100% handicapés dans
le cadre du régime de retraite à vie. Il n'existe aucun avantage ni
supplément de carrière pour ces vétérans. Certes, si les vétérans
sont 100% handicapés, leur carrière est touchée.
Les familles
qui s'occupent des plus handicapés recevront également une
augmentation de l'allocation pour aidant naturels. Alors que les
membres de la famille des vétérans ayant une retraite modeste à vie
auparavant étaient admissibles, ils ne seront plus admissibles à
l'allocation même si aucun de ces membres de la famille n'existe.
Pour les personnes admissibles, 1000 $ mensuel est largement
insuffisant et forcera de nombreuses familles à jongler avec les
soins du vétéran et une carrière, ce qui risque de perdre
l'admissibilité au bénéfice. En effet, les membres de la famille qui
travaillent le plus fort, même si leurs carrières sont souvent
occupées à prendre soin d'un vétéran gravement handicapé, seront les
plus punis ou au moins en bénéficieront le moins.
Le
principal des promesses est le retour aux pensions de vie. Ce sera
un énorme élément budgétaire qui affectera plus de 60 000 anciens
combattants qui coûtent des milliards: d'où le décalage.
La
promiscuité des pensions a permis aux libéraux et aux bureaucrates
de glisser à travers d'autres demi-promesses. L'éducation
universelle supposée pour les vétérans non blessés a été limitée aux
vétérans libérés après le 1er avril 2006, avec six ans ou plus de
service militaire, et refusé aux personnes les plus handicapées ou
au programme de soutien du revenu le plus bas.
Les libéraux
ont promis de supprimer le délai pour les survivants des vétérans
décédés d'accéder à l'éducation et au recyclage. Pour les conjoints
qui s'occupent toujours des vétérans les plus handicapés, la
bureaucratie sans scrupule et insensément imposé une limitation de
deux ans pour recevoir une aide à la transition de carrière, mais
seulement pour les vétérans libérés après le 1er avril 2006.
La bureaucratie contrôle les agendas politiques, diminue la
reconnaissance du service et du sacrifice tout en dégradant les
vétérans et leurs familles grâce à la frustration et à l'exclusion
qui détruisent les âmes.
Répondre à ces problèmes et à
d'autres problèmes nécessite des changements authentiques et
englobants. Cette modification oblige les ministres à faire face à
la haute culture bureaucratique de front. Le ministre O'Regan a
commenté dans la même interview de la SRC: «Nous avons beaucoup de
bonnes personnes qui font un bon travail au nom des vétérans». Si
les hauts fonctionnaires font du «bon travail», par défaut, la
culpabilité incombe aux vétérans de ne pas comprendre ce que le «bon
travail» fait en leur nom. Patroniser les vétérans est le principal
problème, pas la solution. Malheureusement, le ministre O'Regan
semble prêt à renforcer, ne pas résoudre le désordre culturel d'ACC.
For a copy of the original article on the Hill Times website, please
click here (may require subscription)
Sean Bruyea, vice-président des Canadiens pour la
Responsabilité, est titulaire d'un diplôme d'études supérieures en
éthique publique, est un agent de renseignement de la Force aérienne
à la retraite et un commentateur fréquent des problèmes du
gouvernement, de l'armée et des anciens combattants. |
|
|
|
You
Can Help!
All veterans are
encouraged to pass information, opinions, links to self-help sites
onto VVi. VeteranVoice.info is a distribution centre and we are
dependant on others to pass information. This is your site. Tell
other veterans about your site.
Email: info@VeteranVoice.info
Facebook
Messenger:
https://www.facebook.com/VeteranVoice.info
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/VetVoiceinfo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer
and Non-Endorsement for VeteranVoice.info
|
|
