Feature: Here We Go Again - A look at VAC's responsibility to veterans.
PERIODICAL - Oct 2013 Issue No: 201358
Here We Go Again “Unlimited liability means unlimited responsibility”
Yes, that is right here we go again with the “same stuff, different day” (SSDD) as the federal government continues to demonstrate that it does not treat Veterans with the dignity and respect that they deserve, despite many statements by politicians and bureaucrats. Those people seem to suffer from a chronic case of “foot in mouth” disease. Now it is the turn of the new minister, Julian Fantino, to upset and disappoint Veterans. He cannot distinguish between members of the Veterans Community and experienced people.
There is no doubt that Julian Fantino was a veteran member of law enforcement, but that does not make him a Veteran as has been repeatedly stated by many Veterans. It is unlikely that Julian Fantino will ever be a Veteran nor does he know how to walk a mile in a Veteran’s shoes (which is difficult with one shoe lodged in mouth). He seems to think that there is little difference between Veterans and other Canadians, while promoting 30 Days, 30 Reasons—a social media campaign leading up to Remembrance Day. His department does not have a good track record with regards to anything related to Information Technology (IT).
Anyone who has tried to use the VAC website or the new PTSD app for cellular telephones can attest to that. Note, the former deputy minister stated that VAC was in the “dark, dark ages” in terms of IT.
How many Canadians will actually learn anything from this social media campaign? This has not stopped VAC from forging ahead with its dehumanising policy. It has tried several times to replace people with technology. Initiatives like the PTSD app, “My VAC” programme and its shared call centres with Service Canada (NCCN) are examples of VAC failing to properly serve the Veterans Community.
Nine district offices have been closed, which means more Veterans must travel further or speak to a stranger on a telephone to get services. This may have saved money, but has ensured that the Veterans Community is unable to access services and support. Overall, this is part of a larger problem as the federal government tries to husband its monies in one area, while squandering much more in other areas. This is a rather good (and I mean in a negative way) example of “robbing Peter to pay Paul”.
The federal government continues to claim (wrongly) that the Veterans Community is shrinking therefore reductions in VAC are logical. The reality is that the federal government is just trying to shirk its responsibilities by ignoring many within the Veterans Community.
One prime example is the almost non-existent support of homeless Veterans. Another is the delegating of medical support to the provinces. If a homeless or sick Veteran needs help, well do not ask for it from VAC. Only 17% of Veterans are clients of VAC, so the majority are not supported by Julian Fantino and his department.
If a Veteran is able to get support, then there are the additional problems of securing adequate services. VAC has more than one definition of Veteran and there are as many as 19 sub-categories. The most obvious division supported by VAC is the distinction between older members of the Veterans Community and those “served” by the NVC.
VAC refuses to believe that this is discrimination. Julian Fantino opposes the Equitas class action lawsuit, which seeks to end the discrimination. So like the SISIP lawsuit, the federal government will waste money fighting with the Veterans Community. This is one action that will squander the monies “saved” by VAC.
Julian Fantino continues to support the false claims that the federal government is honouring its commitments such as amending the NVC. According to him, “over 160 recommendations” have been implemented, and yet VAC has repeatedly failed to provide evidence of these changes.
This is another example of the hypocrisy as VAC expects the Veterans Community to prove in great detail the extent and severity of any illness and injury (despite the existence of the reasonable doubt clause), while VAC fails to show even some evidence of its reforms. The OVO's report “Veterans Rights to Fair Adjudication” cited the 150 federal court cases reviewed by a third party law firm and concluded that the “benefit of the doubt” was not given to the Veterans.
Is this a good example of the so-called transparency and accountability promoted by the federal government? Making repeated statements does not prove that anything is happening. One only has to review the operations of the various commissions responsible for monitoring the federal government including the integrity commissioner, ethics commissioner and privacy commissioner.
There may have been many complaints lodged with each, but little in the way of results. The first integrity commissioner, Christianne Ouimet, resigned in the wake of evidence presented by the auditor-general that she did little. There were 228 complaints of which only seven were investigated without results.
Christianne Ouimet received $500,000 as her severance package (this was about twice what a fully incapacitated or killed Veteran received as a lump sum at the same time in 2010). Is a disgraced (and incompetent) public servant worth more than a fallen hero? There have been a few meetings involving VAC and the Veterans Community in recent months.
Each meeting shows the contempt that the federal government has for its Veterans. VAC limits each organisation to one representative, while the department can bring as many bureaucrats as it wishes. VAC sets the agenda and ignores input from the groups.
Details of the meetings are not forthcoming, and even worse, VAC does not want representatives to make their own recordings. During the meeting in December 2012, VAC collected all cellular telephones and ordered that all computers be turned off. Again actions contrary to the transparency and accountability policies.
For the last meeting held in October 2013, the Veterans Community received notice of the meeting less than two weeks before the meeting, and the agenda was not shared until mere days before it.
This last meeting was held at the Canadian War Museum and was the first for Julian Fantino.
Despite the capacity of available meeting rooms, again each organisation was restricted to one representative (see the note below about one such room). Again cellular telephones were ordered to be turned off and the use of IT limited to just enhancing the VAC presentations.
Ironically, VAC had a media release distributed at 4:30, exactly when the meeting ended. This was obviously made prior to the meeting and designed simply to provide a positive view of the event, and then released before any Veterans group could provide its assessment.
Obviously Julian Fantino did not want to meet with too many Veterans or hear criticism. In my opinion, restricted numbers lessened the number of complaints.
VAC is really not interested in the opinions of the Veterans Community, which is repeatedly shown by its avoidance of two-way communications. From the so-called consultations of the NVC (six representatives signed a non-disclosure agreement and were shown only a summary of the NVC) to the most recent stakeholders meeting, VAC has tried to minimise the role of the Veterans Community. VAC tries (unsuccessfully) to spin such activities as open and positive relations.
The Federal government has not yet disclosed the classified report “An Independent Assessment of Veterans Affairs Canada” completed in May 2010.
The report is known both to VAC and the Veterans Community, but neither can discuss it. Again where is the transparency and accountability? Keeping the report a secret suggests that it is not a positive assessment of the federal government’s treatment of the Veterans Community. Julian Fantino stated that it is unfair to cherry pick, and yet that is exactly what the federal government does regularly. The summary of the NVC presented to the carefully selected six representatives was a good example. By cherry picking, VAC created a false impression of the benefits of the NVC. Too late Canadians learned that there were major faults. Veterans’ advocates have had to resort to drastic measures to uncover the faults, unfortunately with mixed success. As mentioned above, requests for information and complaints are often unsuccessful. Taking legal action as with the SISIP and Equitas lawsuits are very extreme measures. No matter what action is taken, the federal government is reluctant to provide information or improve its services. Julian Fantino stated that Parliament is the appropriate place to reform VAC, but why should any Canadian believe that politicians have the answers? The federal government is willing to spend money honouring the Veterans Community during a few public ceremonies each year, while ignoring the majority for the rest of the year, and spending money to legally combat Veterans. Is it good public relations to claim support, while stabbing Veterans in the back? I suggest that Julian Fantino read the classic self-help book “How to Win Friends & Influence People” by Dale Carnegie. This book has been around almost as long as Canada’s commitments to its Veterans Community. It is never too late to learn something and Julian Fantino needs to educate himself about the Veterans Community. Lest we forget, it is not just the Conservative Party that is at fault. The NVC was the legacy of the Liberal Party, which convinced Parliamentarians to support the charter. Neither party has done enough to honour Canada’s commitment to its Veterans Community. And using pension funds to pay down the national debt does not count as honouring the sacrifices of living and deceased Veterans. Just another example of Peter and Paul… “you need not fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and Empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done.” Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister Almost 100 years later, the federal government is doing its best to fail to show appreciation of Veterans’ services. This long term failure should also be remembered on 11 November, every year.The Barney Danson Theatre is a state-of-the-art theatre with a sleek modern look, and raked seating that can fold away to accommodate a banquet or stand-up reception. Comprehensive technical information is available upon request. The Museum Box Office can assist with ticketing for all performing arts events. USES Banquets, receptions, conferences, galas, live performances and films CAPACITY 235 people theatre-style 200 people banquet-style 400 people standing EQUIPMENT Sound, lighting, DVD and PowerPoint projection. Accommodates simultaneous interpretation, Internet access. With the proliferation of IT equipment (cellular telephones and tablets for example), it would have been easy to arrange for recording of the October 2013 meeting in the Canadian War Museum in this high tech facility. Perry Gray is the Co-Publisher and Chief Editor of VeteranVoice.info. A Message from Minister Fantino October 8, 2013 VVi 8 Oct 2013 Dear Veteran / Cher(ère) vétéran, (For your information / Pour information) There exists a tangle of misinformation regarding how Canada treats its men and women who have served in uniform - as well as regarding the legislation known as the New Veterans Charter. Improvements made by our government, and validated by the latest Veterans Ombudsman report, indicate that while important gaps do need to be filled, a majority of Canada's veterans receive the support and care that they need. Almost eight years ago, a unanimous Parliament endorsed wholesale change to veterans' support and services. Since implementing the New Veterans Charter in 2006, our government has invested almost $4.7-billion in new funding to enhance veterans benefits, programs and services. Today, seriously injured veterans receive significant financial support up front, and each month, in addition to having access to world-class treatment from some of the most experienced medical professionals in Canada. As the Ombudsman notes in his recently released actuarial analysis, "the Enhanced [New Veterans] Charter is focused on wellness and rehabilitation, while the Pension Act focuses on compensation." Our approach is not to simply throw money at a problem or a person. We are focused on providing the best support and care for veterans and their families. Canadians can and should be proud of the commitment they have shown through their parliamentarians to support Canadian veterans who are injured in the line of duty. According to the Veterans Ombudsman's report, the modern framework now in place to assist our former men and women in uniform "in lieu of a monthly pension cheque, [provides] a suite of benefits and services that encourages wellness and rehabilitation and is consistent with the principles of modern disability management." The Ombudsman is also prudent enough to provide a caveat: "Frequently, comparisons are made only between the Pensions Act monthly disability pension and the New Veterans Charter lump sum disability award without taking into context the overall suite of monetary and non-monetary benefits provided under the New Veterans Charter. Such 'cherry picking' does not provide an objective view of how all the benefits come together to provide a particular effect." Our government also introduced significant legislative improvements to the New Veterans Charter in 2011 that were praised in the Ombudsman's report as having "had a positive effect." We incorporated over 160 recommendations that were determined after wide consultation. In particular, we implemented enhancements to the New Veterans Charter that make it easier to qualify for the Permanent Impairment Allowance (PIA) and the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance, along with a series of other changes that boost the transition of a veteran to civilian life. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, the changes made by our government allow for a veteran to have increased choice. They can either receive a one-time lump-sum payment; an annual installment over the number of years of a veteran's choosing; or a combination of these two payment options. Our government continues to take positive action on behalf of veterans. Last week, I announced that the government of Canada will support a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, including all enhancements, with a special focus placed on the most seriously injured, support for families and the delivery of programs by Veterans Affairs Canada. I call on parliamentarians to focus on how we can better assist veterans. This parliamentary review, guided by representatives elected by the people of Canada, will provide an appropriate forum where all voices can be heard, including and especially those of veterans, their family members, other interested individuals and subject-matter experts. That is where we can work together to enact appropriate change for veterans and their families.In truth, the very reason for the Ombudsman's work is to support just such a review, and not supersede it as a few critics have falsely claimed. Our government is committed to the veteran who has sacrificed so much for their country. We will continue to work through Veterans Affairs Canada, with relevant stakeholders, community and families to ensure that we ably meet needs while also being mindful of our responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer. Our veterans, and Canadians, deserve no less. Sincerely / Cordialement, Julian Fantino PC, MP / CP, député Minister of Veterans Affairs / Ministre des Anciens Combattants New Veterans Affairs minister: same old crisis of insensitivity By SEAN BRUYEA VVi Guest Columnist 10/14/2013 VVi 15 Oct 2013 OTTAWA—Veterans aren’t happy and recently-appointed Veterans Affair Minister Julian Fantino is only fanning the fire with the usual parroting of bureaucratic misinformation. How do veterans and other Canadians hold a minister and his bureaucracy accountable for spreading half-truths and misleading claims?The first step to accountability is to uncover the truth. The situation in the veteran community is so dire that Fantino wrote an op-ed for theNational Post and also sent it out on the internet addressed to “Dear Veteran.” His open letter claims there is a “tangle of misinformation regarding how Canada treats” its veterans. His first assertion is that “a majority of Canada’s veterans receive the support and care they need.” The truth is Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) provides programs to a mere 17 per cent of Canada’s serving and retired military members. It would be impossible for Fantino to know whether the remaining 83 per cent of veterans are indeed having their needs met since no effort is made by his department to track the “needs” of this population. The primary focus of the minister’s op-ed is the legislation for Canadian Forces members and veterans known as the “New Veterans Charter.” He rightly points out that Parliament was unanimous in endorsing “wholesale change to veterans’ support and services” for post-World War II Canadian Forces veterans. What he leaves out is that Parliament never scrutinized the legislation in a House committee and not a single word of debate was permitted amongst MPs. Bureaucracy and successive ministers promised Canadians that the legislation was open to regular changes, claiming the new program was a “living Charter.”Since that time, Fantino’s government has wrongly taken credit for the $4.7-billion, which has been cumulatively added to the department’s budget since 2006. What the minister does not explain is that almost 50 per cent of those funds were cost of living increases hard-wired into Parliamentary law. A substantial part of the remaining $4.7-billion was allocated as early as 2005 as part of the legislation which replaced lifetime disability pensions for lifelong injuries with one-time lump sums. The bureaucrats anticipated the increased upfront cost of the lump sum program would eventually save the department money in what one callous bureaucrat of the time proclaimed would be a “wellness dividend.” In a not so veiled attack on the lifelong pension, the minister claims that the lump sum program does not “simply throw money at a problem or a person.” This is a rather rich claim since the lump sum is seen by rehabilitation and medical as well as veteran policy experts as doing exactly that: throwing money in the short term at a veteran and leaving most recipients without anything to show for their lifelong injuries in the years that follow. The minister is quick to laud the recent veterans ombudsman report which notes that unfair comparisons are made between the lump sum and lifelong disability pensions without considering the “overall suite of monetary and non-monetary benefits provided under the New Veterans Charter.” The minister claims this “cherry picking” is not objective. What the minister omits and the veterans ombudsman overlooked is that a recent uncontested Federal Court ruling concludes that compensation for pain and suffering must be considered completely separate from other economic financial benefits. Because of this ruling it is both legal and correct to compare these two programs directly. Even the ombudsman notes that “there are undeniable differences between the value” of the two programs. Even with all programs taken into account, the Veterans Ombudsman concludes that the “overall value”of the New Veterans Charter programs is below the benefits paid under the lifelong disability program. The minister asserts that his department implemented “over 160 recommendations that were determined after wide consultation.” However, repeated efforts over the past two years by organizations such as the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans’ groups to obtain a detailed accounting of the ethereal changes resulting from the implemented recommendations have yet to materialize from Fantino’s department. In his final words, the minister concludes that an upcoming review of the New Veterans Charter in Parliament will work towards “appropriate change” to address the “needs” of veterans and their families. However, the previous review proposed 16 areas of change, each necessitating a handful of specific remedies. The result was that the bureaucracy ignored all but four specific remedies. As for attempts to placate the overwhelming cries to reinstate the lifelong pension: the department implemented a choice to receive the lump sum all at once or the same lump sum paid over any chosen period. It is not surprising that less than five per cent of recipients of the lump sum chose to take it overtime and none were given the choice between a lifelong pension and a one-time lump sum payment. The minister’s cherry picking of facts has served to only further inflame a veteran and family population far too bruised by bureaucratic insensitivity and empty political rhetoric. It is the veterans and their families who must define what is “appropriate change” and what they “need.” It is nothing less thancondescending paternalism for a department, 99 per cent of which has never served in the military, to tell a veteran what he or she “needs.”
The Department’s Values and Ethics states that “we are accountable and responsible for our actions and accept the consequences for our decisions.” Are these words just another half-truth? Sean Bruyea is vice-president of Canadians for Accountability and he is also a veteran.
NOTE: This article was also published in The Hill Times October 14, 2013 edition
Changes to VeteranVoice.info Websites Currently, VVi websites, including the CSAT Forum and this Periodical, are going through comprehensive upgrades. Enhanced types of coding will be inserted to increase speed and interactivity with the users. Some of the current pages of the website will dissappear as they are not accessed, well other pages will be simplified. The menu system will also change in appearance and performance. The new websites will also change significantly in their appearances. The end-date for the upgrade is expected to be no later than end-Feb 2014. webmaster@veteranvoice.info
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 .
ADMIN OnLine Database