Please visit: http://politicalknocks.com/2014/03/18/a-grieving-military-widows-open-letter-to-stephen-harper/
To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile.
You can view the full announcement by following this link:
http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?topic=12815.0
Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.
Does the new veterans' charter fail to support Canadians who served in war zones? Pat Stogran and MPs Parm Gill and Joyce Murray comment
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+&+Politics/ID/2442904273/
--------------
Nearly 100 years ago, before the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Prime Minister Robert Borden made a vow to troops that laid the groundwork for decades of government policy, but has never been enshrined in the Constitution.
"You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government I give you this assurance: That 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," Borden said.
"The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home… that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died."
----------
Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.
At potentially $7,500 per person, Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino's Cyprus junket cost just over $100,000 for 14 individuals. (Sean Bruyea, The Hill Times, Date: 20140317)
On March 12, 2014, the flag lowered in Kabul, Canada's most costly mission since World War II. Not a single Conservative MP attended. The next day, Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino flew to Cyprus to commemorate the UN mission's 50th anniversary.
In an email, Veterans Affairs Canada indicated Fantino would be accompanied by "a staff member, five veterans from the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association, five veterans from the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping and two program officials."
Retired captain Perry Gray was contingent commander in Cyprus from 1996-1998. He is chief editor of VeteranVoice.info, an internet community of 100,000 subscribers. "Why are they going to Cyprus? It is unresolved, a black mark. Nicosia is the only remaining divided capital of Europe," said Gray, adding, "we were never consulted on this trip."
It appears that only CPVA and CAVUNP were asked to nominate individuals. CAVUNP had approximately 375 members in January 2013 and CPVA is considerably smaller. However, both would not respond to repeated email questions about the trip or their membership numbers, which include more than just peacekeeping veterans.
VeteransofCanada.ca is a community of more than 7,500 members with at least 640 peacekeeping veterans.
Don Leonardo, president and founder of VOC, said his organization was not consulted, "We are in budget constraints. It's a matter of priorities. Couldn't that money have been allocated to help prevent suicide, provide greater benefits, makes changes to the New Veterans Charter?"
Veterans Affairs declined to provide any cost estimate for the seven-day trip, but confirmed "VAC is paying the full cost of airfare, travel, accommodation and daily incidentals for the 10 [veterans]."
In 2013, Fantino billed $5,173.54 for a two-day trip to London and $9,306.37 for three days in Korea. At potentially $7,500 per person, Cyprus could cost just over $100,000 for 14 individuals.
Jerry Kovacs, of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, said his organization was not consulted. "The optics look bad…budget cutbacks, office closures, staff reductions and then you have a junket to Cyprus during March break while it's snowing and cold. Who's advising this guy? The money is better spent elsewhere, like on veterans, especially the homeless, their families, research on helping veterans, service dogs; you know, on services that directly benefit veterans and their families."
For the 2014 commemoration of 70 years since D-Day, Canada has allocated funding for 180 veterans at $2,000 each. The Conservative government has come under attack for its commemoration of the dead while the injured and their families remain neglected.
Commemoration for the War of 1812 ran to more than $28-million.
In a presentation during a meeting with veteran organizations in October 2013, Fantino failed to mention the planned trip to Cyprus.
A PowerPoint slide indicated, "The large majority of Canadians [89 per cent] believe that the service of post-war or modern-day veterans should be recognized."
How are Canadians to recognize, let alone participate 8,600 km from Ottawa where a captivatingly haunting peacekeeping monument rests silently? Could not a fraction of that money host a brief outdoor ceremony at the monument followed by hundreds of Cyprus veterans and the public including children on March break expressing appreciation in many of the nearby conference venues?
The Royal Canadian Legion is Canada's largest veteran organization, with more than 90,000 post-WWII veterans. At least 3,500 of its members served in Cyprus.
Dominion Secretary Brad White wrote in an email to me, "[t]he legion was not consulted on the commemoration trip to Cyprus, nor does it know of the intended plans," adding, "[t]here does need to be a balance on how much is spent as compared to the amount of monies set aside to look after those who have been injured in the service of their country."
Why were only two organizations asked to provide candidates? On its website, CPVA, one of the organizations sending five individuals, indicates CPVA organized two previous commemoration trips in 2011 and 2012 wherein they intended to seek funding from VAC.
During VAC stakeholder meetings in February and December 2012, president of CAVUNP, Ron Griffis, advocated for a trip to Cyprus.
Mike Blais, president and founder of CVA, was seriously injured in Cyprus; "Our time in the meetings would have been better served focusing solely on the real issues such as seriously injured veterans and their families rather than commemoration. I do not think [VAC] should have approached this on an organizational level. VAC has an obligation to the wounded. They should have offered the injured the opportunity to go back. Instead [the wounded] were largely abandoned."
Ron Cundell, webmaster of VeteranVoice.info, said he remembers Griffis advocating for the Cyprus trip. "Are you the president of your veteran organization to improve veterans' quality of life or for free trips?"
It is sad that government forces veterans to scavenge for fiscal scraps. It is equally sad that some veterans willingly participate in this trip.
Sean Bruyea is vice-president of Canadians for Accountability, a retired Air Force intelligence officer and frequent commentator on government, military, and veterans' issues.
The Hill Times
Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.
March 10, 2014. 2:18 pm • Section: Defence Watch
By Sean Bruyea
Defence Watch Guest Writer
There has been no shortage of excuses and red herrings from government to avoid making substantive improvements in the lives of Canada's veterans and their families. This inaction has catalyzed veterans' communities to forge a near unanimous game plan. Government has merely chosen to play another sport.
Once upon a time, government had an easy game going. It could count on the deep rivalry between veterans' organizations to divide and conquer. Groups were quite willing to side with government against other organizations as each lobbied for their special interests behind closed doors. In the end, government was free to do little in pushing through a 50-year agenda which essentially abandoned Canadian Forces veterans and their families.
Unsightly infighting was greatly aggravated by dozens of policies and programs which each created multiple classes and subclasses of veterans. The veterans ombudsman has identified 15 categories of veterans in the long-term care program alone. The much-revered military comradeship often drove veterans of one military campaign to disparage those from other campaigns. In this hostile environment, CF veterans remained further relegated to a policy backseat.
The passage of the New Veterans Charter (NVC) in 2005 promised to change this. Government explicitly guaranteed that the legislation was a "living charter" with regular reviews and improvements to follow. In the nine years since its passage, just three modest legislative changes have been enacted even though Veterans Affairs Canada-funded advisory groups, Parliamentary committees, and internal reports have generated more than 380 recommendations, many of which require legislated and regulatory approval.
Meanwhile, government asked veterans to whittle down their demands. Two years ago, a not-so-small miracle took place. During what was called a Veterans Stakeholder Committee meeting in February 2012, 20 veterans representing 11 organizations and four experts unanimously endorsed three resolutions. They called for the immediate implementation of the above recommendations as well as those from the Gerontological Advisory Council. This was the first time since World War II that so many veteran organizations were unanimously clear and specific on their demands.
In response, not one change to legislation has since occurred in spite of VAC's own terms of reference for the committee as "an action-oriented committee, at which issues of common interest to all participants will be identified for joint and collective action, in the best interest of veterans and their families."
What has changed is the heavy-handed character of the Stakeholder Committee meetings. Veterans could previously receive immediate feedback from their organizations via Twitter and emails or electronically take notes, a necessity for the more disabled veterans. The meeting on Dec. 6, 2012 in Charlottetown, P.E.I., put an end to this. Veterans were instructed to relinquish their cellphones, not merely turn them off, and were not permitted to use their laptops.
"It's childish and demeaning," Don Leonardo, national president of VeteransofCanada.ca, an active online community of more than 7,300 veterans, told me on the phone last week. "It shows lack of trust with stakeholders. They say they want to partner with us but they don't treat us as equals but treat us like a child :'put your phones in the box boys and girls.' "
Surprisingly, most veterans in attendance complied, veterans who sacrificed defending cherished rights and freedoms such as freedom of expression.
Prior meetings and VAC's terms of reference allowed two individuals per organization. For the disabled veterans, sharing the burden of concentration and feedback allowed for more effective representation of disabled veterans and their families.
"Support. Absolutely," retired major Bruce Henwood, double amputee and chair of the Special Needs Advisory Group which VAC suspended one year prior, told me last week. "Two heads are better than one. It is easy to forget to say or remember important things."
Conversely, the department and the minister are sure to bring a dozen or more staff, all supporting one another.
"Permitting only one person to attend is a control issue," said Jerry Kovacs, director of Canadian Veterans Advocacy (CVA), in an email to me. He points out that during an October 2013 meeting, "ministerial and departmental staff almost outnumbered veterans in the room."
Also in contravention of the terms of reference, after February 2012, VAC terminated the participation of four chairs of Advisory Groups and the Croatia Board of Inquiry. "We were uninvited," said Bruce Henwood. "VAC adopted the ostrich syndrome. They didn't want to hear the problems, so they didn't want to hear from their own advisors."
Meanwhile, another miracle occurred during a spring 2012 veterans-only meeting hosted by the Royal Canadian Legion. The organizations chose to call the government's bluff as they put forward three specific recommendations from the hundreds outstanding. Lt.-Gen. Walter Semianiw, seconded from DND to a VAC assistant deputy minister position, took control of the December 2012 stakeholder meeting.
"Walter Semianiw asked veterans stakeholders for our three priorities from three studies," Leonardo told me last week. "We played their game. We gave them three priorities. They did nothing."
It all seems to be about government controlling the message, the meetings, and the veterans. The one subsequent meeting held on Oct. 2, 2013 was attended by Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino and chaired by Semianiw. The general wore his uniform amongst retired members, all who had a lower rank during their military service. This was hardly a meeting of "equals."
Cellphones were once again confiscated and observers were prohibited. The Royal Canadian Legion president, "Gord Moore was going to walk out of the meeting when Brad [White, dominion secretary] was refused to attend as an observer," Kovacs wrote to me in an email.
The government rightly caved. Two individuals from the Legion – Gord More and Brad White- as well as two from the Canadian Veterans Advocacy (Mike Blais and Jerry Kovacs) were allowed to stay. Sadly, no other veteran organization was given the opportunity to include observers or two-member participation.
VAC wrote in an email to me that the October 2013 meeting was a "stakeholder meeting" and claimed the "[VAC] engages regularly with veterans' organizations and other stakeholders to help ensure that VAC services and benefits meet the needs of veterans and their families."
Janice Summersby continued in the email, "VAC recognizes the value of ongoing dialogue with stakeholders and their input and feedback is used to inform decision making."
"[T]his is a bullshit response," said Kovacs. "There was never a list of 'action items' or 'priorities' drafted for review and discussion…which confirms that [Oct. 2, 2013] was a minister's invitation meeting to meet some veterans organizations and not a 'Departmental Stakeholders Meeting.'"
VAC has not held a semblance of a stakeholder meeting since December 2012 or arguably since February 2012. However, terms of reference state, "The committee will meet at least twice per year, face-to-face, in the fall and spring. Other meetings may be organized, as required, throughout the year including by way of tele- or video-conferencing." There has never been "tele-or video-conferencing."
What is the intention of the meetings? "[T]hese have ceased becoming consultation meetings but demands by VAC to repeat their media lines to our organizations. I am not a paid advertiser for VAC. I am there to represent the needs of the members of my organization," said Don Leonardo.
In spite of government's relentless 'control' issues vis-à-vis veterans, there is hope. Last-minute assertiveness by the Royal Canadian Legion underlines that veterans do have clout and need to exercise it if they ever wish to be treated as equal partners. Veterans have much to learn from the aboriginal community.
Sadly, Canada's First Nations have gone to court repeatedly to receive respect. After years of being given the short shrift by the federal government, aboriginal peoples now have a legal framework for meaningful two-way equal partner consultation. Government needs to declare that veterans deserve no less.
For 50 years, veterans have largely permitted government to choose the game, dictate the rules, rig the arena, and select the players on the veterans' team. If veterans allow this to continue, they should not be surprised that they score few, if any, goals.
Editor's note: Sean Bruyea served as an air force intelligence officer before retiring from the Canadian Forces. He is vice-president of Canadians for Accountability.
To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile.
You can view the full announcement by following this link:
http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?topic=12726.0
Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.
1. Service Delivery and Programs: The primary risk being mitigated by the Department is that the modernization of VAC's service delivery model will not be achieved as expected, and will not meet the needs of Veterans, Canadian Armed Forces members, and their families.
2. Transformation- Partnerships: Despite the overall benefits, there is a risk that quality service delivery could be affected due to VAC's increasing reliance on partners and service providers in the federal, provincial and municipal governments as well as private sector.
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/pdf/deptReports/rpp/2014-2015/vac-acc-web-pdf-eng.pdf
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=9588593
Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.
By MICHAEL BLAIS |
Published: Friday, 02/28/2014 6:19 pm EST
Last Updated: Friday, 02/28/2014 8:02 pm EST
NIAGARA FALLS, ONT.—The artificially created furor over Andrew Leslie's military retirement benefits has borne the expected results. Political pundits took to social media, radio, newspapers, and television for several days to discuss the seemingly outrageous sum that the former general claimed for housing and move-related expenses as a component of the Canadian Forces retirement benefit.
Benefit, not entitlement.
Disinformation, perhaps willfully applied in the guise of political expedience, stoked the flames of discord. Defence Minister Rob Nicholson chimed in on cue, disparaging Leslie's judgment despite the fact that this seemingly terrible act occurred under his watch. Esteemed Ottawa barrister Michel Drapeau, for whom I bear a great deal of respect, expressed disappointment due to proximity issues inherent with Leslie's move. His position was buoyed by a CBC exposé dramatically revealing that several admirals and Army/Air Force generals also availed themselves of this program when they decided to retire in the community of their last assignment. Most recently, Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant, who shocked the veterans' community at CFB Petawawa with her inconsiderate comments on mental health stigma, embraced this position and has announced publicly that she will be studying "relocation" costs incurred through the CF retirement benefit.
Retired colonel Pat Stogran, Canada's first veterans ombudsman, was perhaps the most outspoken critic. Joining the fray on CBC Power and Politics, he derided Leslie as self-serving and claimed that he did not take advantage of his retirement benefit as he felt there was, due to ongoing public service, a conflict of interest when he assumed his role as Canada's first veterans ombudsman. There is no conflict of interest. Military service is unique; the retirement benefits inherent with a willingness to sacrifice one's life on behalf of the nation over a 20-year service span reflect this most sacred obligation. Whether you choose to retire or, as I would encourage younger veterans such as Leslie, to continue to serve the nation's interests through public service, is irrelevant to the program criteria.
Perspective is required. First, this not some dreaded liberal entitlement with all the dreaded connotations inferred by those who would attempt to make the issue political shortly before Leslie was to speak before the Liberal biennial convention. Leslie is, of course, an exception; a vast majority of CF retirement benefit recipients have not incurred such a wonderful equity return on their investments. Real estate fees, the primary component of the program, on a million-dollar-plus home are not insignificant; at the very least, close to $60,000 of the $72,000 in question was applied to this expense. Add to this the legal costs associated with selling and buying a home, moving expenses and the $72,000 is clearly justified under the programs criteria. ?
Leslie is an exception. Most CF personnel are not posted to a prime real estate area like Ottawa; there is no market-inflated increase in equity. Some, such as major Marcus Brauer, have suffered catastrophic consequences when the military communities, that DND encouraged them to purchase equity-building homes in, were subsequently ravaged by deficit reduction downsizing or base closures and the market collapsed. The rank and file, by pay-scale definition, does not have the financial resources to purchase accommodations equitable to the same level of comfort as would be expected of a general. They are also subject to four-year posting cycles common to military service that necessitates relocation before accruing much equity. Leslie was fortunate. He maintained his residence in Ottawa for an extended period of time and the equity the property accrued was indeed significant.
DND implemented the program in the 1990s to encourage CF members to purchase homes during their careers to establish financial equity to supplement their pensions upon retirement. This program has borne significant benefits to the affected communities and DND equity assurance policies undoubtedly stimulated and sustained economic growth in isolated areas—like CFB Petawawa, Gallant—wherein the base provides the sole or primary employment infrastructure. Where bases still exist, CF members often choose to retire there due to preference, post-military employment opportunities and/or the fact that their spouses, understanding retirement is imminent, availed themselves of local employment opportunities that transcend the standard posting period. ??
To deny the rank, file, and their families these retirement benefits by using Leslie, the exception, as an example to eliminate the CF retirement benefit program or imposing criteria inclusive of mandatory range exclusions, is disingenuous. Significant financial hardship will be imparted upon the retiring CF member as these costs, real estate, legal fees, moving expenses, will surely negate most if not all equity accrued through the DND sponsored program.
Leslie, exception he may be, fulfilled the program's longstanding criteria for eligibility. Questions about his judgment are clearly unfounded, politically motivated and, considering Gallant's response, perhaps indicative of a more insidious budget deficit scheme to deny Canadian Forces members the retirement benefits they have earned.
I would suggest now is the time for the Harper government, with respect, not derision, to honour its obligation to Leslie and to all CF members who have fulfilled their obligation to this nation and qualify for CF retirement benefits, wherever they choose to retire. Canada's sons and daughters have, through great sacrifice and honour, earned the right of choice.
Michael L. Blais, CD, is founder and president of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy and is based in Niagara Falls, Ont.
To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile.
You can view the full announcement by following this link:
http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?topic=12627.0
Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.
By Michel W. Drapeau
And Joshua Juneau
Defence Watch Guest Writers
The recent rise of suicides of Afghan veterans, which should have been predictable, has focused national attention to the despair and neglect many of them are facing. It has also drawn attention to the likelihood that the suicide rate amongst CF members is many times higher than the Canadian statistical norm. This is supported in a Statistics Canada report which found that, among CAF member, 26.6 percent of the male deaths and 14 percent of female deaths were the result of suicide. This same Report states that individuals with some military career experience are 45 percent more likely to die as a result of suicide than those in the general population.
These numbers, though, may be underinflated, as some retired military suffering from depression or other form of service-related injury, both physical and mental, are unaccounted for because they are currently outside the reach of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). In other words, bad as it is, the problem is likely even worse if we consider that at present the VAC clientele only accounts for less than 30% of the veteran population.
As of March 2013, VAC reports that there are 91,400 veterans of the Second World War, with an average age of 89. There are 9,900 veterans of the Korean War, with an average age of 81. There are also 594,300 veterans who served in the Regular and Reserve components of the Canadian Forces since 1947 with an average age of 56. This totals close to 700,000 veterans.
In 2012, VAC estimated that is had a clientele of 220,242 veterans plus some survivors (primarily spouses) and approximately 6,000 RCMP personnel. These individual are 'clients' of VAC because they receive a disability pension, benefits and services under the Veterans Independence Program and/or treatment benefits. These 220,000 veterans are 'looked' after by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the VAC staff, the Bureau of Pension Advocates (BPA) and the VAC Ombudsman. However, this leaves a very large number who, are officially 'unaccounted for'. From our perspective, our government owes a duty to these veterans as well as those who already have advanced a claim through the VAC auspices.
Increasingly, we find many of these 'unaccounted for' veterans involved in a mounting number of grass-roots veterans advocacy groups vying for national attention for their legitimate claims and expectations. We find others involved in some form of court action as well as families of deceased veterans mounting a vigil alerting the public to their plight and abandon.
?
This Bureau is a VAC organization composed mainly of lawyers whose main function is to provide free legal advice, assistance and representation for veterans dissatisfied with decisions already rendered by VAC with respect to their claims for entitlement to disability benefits, or any assessment awarded for their entitled conditions. Its mandate is to assist VAC clients in the preparation of applications for review or for appeals, and to arrange for them to be represented by a lawyer at hearings before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB). Given their experience in pension matters, they are recognized as specialists in the area of claims for disability benefits. Our own experience indicates, however, that their resources may be very limited since there has been no adjustment to account for the increased workload in the wake of the Afghan mission.
Currently, a veteran dissatisfied with the services and benefits received from the VAC is eligible to receive support from the VAC Ombudsman whose mandate is: "the provision of services, benefits, and support in a fair, accessible, and timely manner and to raise awareness of the needs and concerns of Veterans and their families." The VAC Ombudsman addresses complaints related to VAC programs and services and emerging issues with respect to appeals filed with the VRAB. However, his mandate and resources do not permit him to address the much wider and substantial issues facing the remaining 500,000 veterans. As we will see, this is left to an ad hoc combination of occasional parliamentary interventions, anecdotal media campaigns concerning the increasing number of PTSD sufferers, and legal processes such as an occasional military boards of inquiry, coroner's inquests, or civil litigation. – All of which leading to a perception that Canada is failing to address the current unfairness which disadvantages service personnel injured during deployments abroad as well as the changing needs of the veteran community.
We know that may veterans will face challenges in adjusting to civilian life. Many will experience long lasting and significant impacts and continue to struggle with PTSD and other mental health problems. Families and careers of veterans will share the consequences of their service and this struggle.
How many of our retired Veterans are suffering from PTSD but are too proud or scared of career ramifications to come forward? It is estimated that approximately 15% of our soldiers who deployed on operations will eventually fall victim to PTSD. Given that some 30,000 soldiers served in Afghanistan alone, in the fullness of time, Canada can expect having to deal with approximately 4,500 PTSD sufferers.
A harder question may be: how many of those will be diagnosed with PTSD and received treatment, before it is too late? This is something we may never know, as the purview of the VAC Ombudsman only extends to those veterans who have already come forward and requested a VAC disability award. Further, it is also outside the purview of the DND/CF Ombudsman since these distressed retired personnel are no longer eligible to receive care and protection from the military.
It behooves us to ask, therefore, how many of Canada's 500,000 veterans who are retired and not collecting VAC disability pensions, could potentially commit suicide due to mental health injuries? This also may never be known, as the statistics of suicide among veterans is only catalogued for serving members and retired members receiving a VAC disability award. A veteran who commits suicide, who is not receiving a VAC disability award, is counted as a 'civilian' casualty.
Litigation activities over the past decades have demonstrated that many veterans have lost faith in the capacity or the willingness of government to provide them with the required support or, if provided with such support, they are dissatisfied by the handling of their pension and the fetters imposed on them by the existing legislated programs. This may explain why we are witnessing an increasing number of lawsuits initiated by post-Korean War veterans. Consider the following three examples:
1. Agent Orange – Gagetown
Between 1966 and 1967, civilian and military personnel at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown were exposed to harmful levels of Agent Orange, a powerful herbicide developed by the US military for use in the Vietnam War. It is reported that these individuals were told that the chemicals were harmless, to the point that some would spray each other with the chemical to cool off. Decades later, it was learned that Agent Orange exposure causes cancer and other deleterious health effects. By way of settlement, VAC offered to pay each valid claimant who was still living $20,000. This is the subject of a lengthy class action lawsuit filed in 2005 by Merchant LLP, and is still largely ongoing.
2. Dennis Manuge
This case, initiated in 2007, was also the subject of lengthy class action litigation. The Manuge class action concerned the clawback of SISIP benefits, which were found to be contrary to section 30(1) of the Pension Act. It was argued, among other things, that this was unconstitutional, and against legislative interpretation. Ultimately, in 2013, the Government and the Class settled for a reported $887 million.
3. Equitas lawsuit
This is another class action suit in which named veterans claim that the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-Establishment and Compensation Act (the "New Veterans Charter") substantially reduced their benefits and compensation that would have been formerly granted under the Pension Act. As a result, many of the veterans of the Afghanistan mission claim that they are being treated unequally because the benefits and compensation available under the New Veterans Charter are substantially less favorable than those that are available to injured persons claiming under tort law or worker compensation laws. Again, this litigation will likely take many years to resolve, and cost much money.
Many of the unaccounted 500,000 veterans or members or their families are currently left to their own devices primarily because their claims fall outside VAC jurisdiction. At present, these persons have not place to go to address their grievances or claims, save and except the court or the media. Perhaps two recent examples would suffice.
1. Joan Larocque
This case received significant national media coverage in mid-2013. Mrs Larocque's husband, Jacques, collapsed and died from a sudden heart attack while on leave in 2005. Post mortem autopsy revealed that Jacques had suffered two previous heart attacks while employed as a member of the Canadian Forces, including one which was diagnosed by military doctors as heartburn, in Afghanistan.
Mrs Larocque had Jacques death deemed "attributed to service" in 2013, after eight long years fighting for recognition. We surmise that Mrs Larocque may now qualify for a widow's pension through VAC. However, currently, investigation into Ms Larocque's matter is outside the mandate of the VAC Ombudsman, as Ms Larocque is not a veteran. This matter is also outside the purview of the DND/CF Ombudsman, because Ms Larocque is not a member of the Canadian Forces. This is no way to treat the family of CF veteran.
2. Boards of Inquiry into the sudden deaths (suicide) of soldiers
When a CF member of dies from a non-combat death, the military conduct an in-camera military Board of Inquiry (BOI) investigation. There are tremendous inconsistencies between a military BOI and a civilian Coroner's Inquest, which may taint the entire process because it shifts the focus of that BOI from a fact finding mandate to a protectionist one; more interested in exonerating the Chain of Command from any blame or liability, than in uncovering truths and/or seeking improvement to the system to prevent future tragedies.
Currently, this issue is outside the purview of the VAC Ombudsman and/or the DND/CF Ombudsman because this time, rightly or wrongly, the chain of command has taken full and exclusive jurisdiction of this issue. In the end, non-combat deaths of say, soldiers suffering from PTSD, go uninvestigated, unless a Charter-challenge is raised by their families, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, unless the military family is granted by the civil authority a Coroner-like independent and impartial fact-finding investigation.
As mentioned earlier, the VAC Ombudsman's limited role and mandate may explain why, at present, there is no national focal point for addressing the needs and expectations of all veterans, and not just those whose names are already listed on the VAC rolodex. His powers are necessarily limited to investigating complaints made by clients of Veterans Affairs. This represents less than one third of the Veterans community, and this is silly.
For the two-thirds of veterans who, while not receiving a disability award, may wish to raise a systemic issue or a claim which falls outside the jurisdiction and existing mandate of the VAC, there are only three avenues: the court, the media or the political route. Another option which would serve the public interest would be to establish a Veterans Commission as a creature of Parliament to serve all veterans. Granted with a reasonable sense of independence and a degree of public confidence, the Veterans Commission would be granted the powers to examine to examine and report on new claims and monitor the effectiveness of existing programs and benefits and, examine and report on new claims. He would also provide assistance for each and every veteran in a seamless transition from military to civilian life. The Veterans Commission would also become the de facto focal point to develop a national strategy to deal with the number one veteran's issue: PTSD. His mandate should be as broad as possible so that no veteran (or family of veteran be turned away).
Lastly, for the sake of efficiency and optimizing resources, the Veterans Commission could be quickly be established by absorbing both the offices Bureau of Pension Advocates as well as the office of the VAC Ombudsman to ensure that there exists a single national focal point to investigate, assess and recommend a coordinated national strategy to deal with issues affecting the morale and welfare of our sons and daughters during and after their military service.
The establishment of such a Veterans Commission may actually save the Government of Canada and the taxpayer money as well, as the costs of such a commission-initiated investigation may be lower than paying a barrage of Department of Justice Lawyers, paralegals and other professionals to proceed with the current and expanding civil litigation. It would also herald a long standing and legislated recognition by Canada of the unique service and sacrifices of those who serve and have served in the armed forces. This would provide Canada with an ability to examine and develop a pro-active, fair and comprehensive national strategy to address and coordinate the nation's welfare support and obligations towards our serving and retired military personnel.
Michel W. Drapeau and Joshua Juneau are Ottawa lawyers who specialize in handling cases of veterans and members of the Canadian Forces.
To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile.
You can view the full announcement by following this link:
http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?topic=12622.0
Regards,
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy Team.
