Vets Affairs policies / problems / solutions

[ballz]

Hello all,

I recently joined the Libertarian Party of Canada. They are currently discussing Veterans Affairs issues and some people are looking to me for answers because they know I'm a CAF member. I have never had to deal with VAC (thankfully), so I don't have much to offer them, other than to speak to people that have had to.

The one thing I have proposed to them, shamelessly stolen from Mr. Campbell, is that the NVC should have been grandfathered in instead of the government changing the terms the troops were fighting under, while they were fighting. They were pretty receptive to this as they understand the government entered into a contract and must honour it. One thing I have trouble with is trying to think for myself what is "fair" compensation for someone who loses a limb? Or suffers permanent brain damage? Etc...

What I am wondering is, what other things would you bring up to a political party looking to form a Vets Affairs policy? Other than having those enrolled prior to 2006 fall under the Pension Act, what about those who enrolled after? What are the biggest issues with the New Veterans Charter and how can they be fixed? What are you experiences? What would a "new" NVC look like if you wrote it?

Does anybody know where I can find the list of recommendations for changes to the New Veterans Charter that was proposed by the VA Committee?

Looking for all your thoughts and dialogue. Cheers.

 

[Tibbson]

A couple of points from my own way to looking at things, and like you I've thankfully never had to deal with VAC yet.

1)  The Govt recently made it quite clear they did not believe they had entered into any "contract" or promise with those who serve.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-don-t-have-social-contract-ottawa-says-in-lawsuit-response-1.2577053  I'm sure even if there was something written down they would still find a way to weasle out of it like they did with the severence issue.

2)  I'd like to see, as a minimum, the compensation amounts be at least on par with civilian WCB levels.  As I understand now a worker at a Ford plant in London who loses an arm receives more then a service member injured overseas.  If I'm wrong on this one I'll gladly acknowledge so to those who may know more on this aspect.

 

[a_majoor]

My wife has had years of aggravation dealing with VAC, and I can tell you much of the issue is institutional in nature, with multiple "offices" which don't seem to communicate with each other, difficult to interpret policies and ultimately lazy and incompetent civil servants who have no investment in the process and no accountability if they (to use two real life examples) don't look at the "client's" file (they claimed to my wife's face there was no record of an event; fortunately she had a paper copy of her own file and pulled the appropriate record) or say to her face she wasn't in the office at a certain time/date when she can call witnesses in the office who place her there. Of course the continual holding up of the process has caused great financial distress as well.

Yes, I am very angry about this.

The ultimate solution will be to redo the legislation so it is easy to interpret and implement, and put in a high level of accountability in the department, so "client's" are not helpless pawns in a game but can demand answers and get service in a timely manner.

 

[ballz]

The ultimate solution will be to redo the legislation so it is easy to interpret and implement, and put in a high level of accountability in the department, so "client's" are not helpless pawns in a game but can demand answers and get service in a timely manner.

Do you think having Vets Affairs fall under the DND as suggested by Romeo Dallaire would help at all?

I have two projects to do for the party, one is about the size / scope / budget of our military, and now I've volunteered to take on the Vets Affairs issue and brief the leadership on it. Not because I know enough about Vets Affairs, but because everyone else is woefully inadequate both in their understanding/experience of the military and in the resources they can use (aka I can ask real vets that have gone through the process and back very easily), and I felt an obligation to veterans to step up to the plate on their behalf since I felt best-suited to the task compared to the others.

I'm still in the process of finding out more how it would look if ran by the DND. Personally I have found healthcare for serving members to be subpar, so I can't see how merging the two departments would improve it. But, since the party seems to agree that one of the legitimate tasks of government is national defence, they also can logically conclude that the government has a responsibility to look after veterans who are injured while fulfilling that task. The party is rather split on the size of the military required, I am in the camp of a larger military being necessary, and after speaking to the leader Tim Moen over a few beers during Christmas, I think he will be too. I have to wonder if a viable solution isn't to have uniformed members directly dealing with Veterans Affairs. This would mean everyone speaking the same language, and the injured member would be more aware of the proper channels in resolving an issue. This could make accountability much more possible, no?

 

[George Wallace]

I do not think that DND should absorb Veterans Affairs, if that is what you are suggesting.  DND should concentrate on treating those who are serving, not those who have left the Canadian Armed Forces.  Veterans Affairs should deal with all Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP retirees who need treatment.  In some cases, perhaps many, there needs to be dual coverage where one is transitioning from the CAF in Retirement/Release to Veterans Affairs.  Both Departments serve a different 'clientele'. 

One thing that we have seen fade from the CAF, has been our medical services.  Once upon a time there were fairly large Military Hospitals spread across the nation, which also served those veterans who required treatment and care.  Those days are long gone, as are most of those medical staffs.

 

[ballz]

I do not think that DND should absorb Veterans Affairs, if that is what you are suggesting.

That's what Romeo Dallaire suggested... I haven't even come close to forming any kind of opinion yet. That's why I'm starting this thread...

 

[Old Sweat]

Veterans' Affairs would logically fall under DND as opposed to the CAF, and hence under the DM's purview. Do we really want to saddle him with another monster when he has trouble keeping a handle on procurement and logistics? Cripes, DND can't even buy winter boots, let alone major capital projects, with any degree of competence.

 

[JS2218]

I recently joined the Libertarian Party of Canada. They are currently discussing Veterans Affairs issues and some people are looking to me for answers because they know I'm a CAF member. I have never had to deal with VAC (thankfully), so I don't have much to offer them, other than to speak to people that have had to.

First, I'd be careful of offering any sort of "opinion," analysis, guidance, whatever you want to call it that could in any way make it seem like you're criticizing the CAF, the government, or the chain of command. QR&Os and all that.

Second, I'm not sure what good a fringe party is going to do in the 2015 election. If you're right-wing and libertarian-minded, your vote and voice is much better placed with the existing Conservative Party. (Full disclosure: I don't mean anything negative in this. I've met and spoken with Jean-Serge Brisson and read his book. I just think that if you're looking to actually affect government policy, you should be formulating these ideas and getting them into the Minister's office.)

Does anybody know where I can find the list of recommendations for changes to the New Veterans Charter that was proposed by the VA Committee?

Right here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6635229&File=9

And the Government's response: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6709993&File=0 (they're receptive to all of the committee's recommendations)

 

[JS2218]

Do you think having Vets Affairs fall under the DND as suggested by Romeo Dallaire would help at all?

This I would agree with. Veterans Affairs doesn't serve its "customers/clients" until they've left the CAF. Put differently, their only clients are former CAF members (and some RCMP officers too). I would structure the unified department under one Minister. An Associate Minister would be in charge of the Veterans Affairs branch and would report to the Minister. There would be two Deputy Ministers: one for VA and one for the CAF. DND should be slimmed down/significantly restructured anyway to allow for the largest possible military and the least amount of civilians.

Another option, if the focus for VAC should be strictly "treating" individuals who are mentally or physically broken: put them under the Ministry of Health.

 

[ballz]

First, I'd be careful of offering any sort of "opinion," analysis, guidance, whatever you want to call it that could in any way make it seem like you're criticizing the CAF, the government, or the chain of command. QR&Os and all that.

Sorry, but I'm so tired of hearing the paranoia and hysteria surrounding political activities as a CAF member. People talk about how you can't join political parties, can't volunteer, can't talk about this and that, can't sign petitions about anything, and it's all a crock of shit. I can openly criticize the CAF all I want in a private setting, and the only restriction about political parties is that you can't have an "active" role. I doubt very much anybody would try to make the case that lending my 2 cents to a political party, in private, that I am a paid member of, is openly criticizing the CAF or otherwise contravening any of the regs that I've seen, and if they did they would be unsuccessful.

Second, I'm not sure what good a fringe party is going to do in the 2015 election. If you're right-wing and libertarian-minded, your vote and voice is much better placed with the existing Conservative Party. (Full disclosure: I don't mean anything negative in this. I've met and spoken with Jean-Serge Brisson and read his book. I just think that if you're looking to actually affect government policy, you should be formulating these ideas and getting them into the Minister's office.)

The CPC does not represent my views or values. In fact, they are in many ways in complete contradiction to them, as are the other mainstream parties. Fringe parties will remain fringe parties if everyone decides that they only have three options to choose from and that their own value system isn't worth bringing to the table. At this point, I would prefer to "waste" a vote than vote for the CPC. Recently, the LPoC has grown exponentially in membership and financially, has matured into offering viable solutions (instead of utopian ideas that they had in the past) and is well on its way to fielding more candidates than the Green Party due to some good work being done by some pretty savvy people. I'm more than happy to toss my vote their way. Will they make a splash in 2015? No, probably not, but can make a ripple.

Right here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6635229&File=9

And the Government's response: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6709993&File=0 (they're receptive to all of the committee's recommendations)

Thanks. As far as I know, the government has not adopted any of the recommendations which is something Vets advocate groups have been critical of?

 

[ballz]

This I would agree with. Veterans Affairs doesn't serve its "customers/clients" until they've left the CAF. Put differently, their only clients are former CAF members (and some RCMP officers too). I would structure the unified department under one Minister. An Associate Minister would be in charge of the Veterans Affairs branch and would report to the Minister. There would be two Deputy Ministers: one for VA and one for the CAF. DND should be slimmed down/significantly restructured anyway to allow for the largest possible military and the least amount of civilians.

Another option, if the focus for VAC should be strictly "treating" individuals who are mentally or physically broken: put them under the Ministry of Health.

Having two DMs is along the lines of what Romeo Dallaire was suggesting I believe.

Having them fall under the Ministry of Health wouldn't work with the LPoC platform. The LPoC would repeal the Canada Health Act and give the power back to the provinces to raise their own revenues and administer their own healthcare, instead of the centralized sham of a system we have now that undermines the Constitution. If the province wants to allow private alternatives, they would be finally be able to.

 

[Tibbson]

That's what Romeo Dallaire suggested... I haven't even come close to forming any kind of opinion yet. That's why I'm starting this thread...

Is that you Gen Dallaire?  Why not use your own name when you post?

 

[Tibbson]

Fringe parties will remain fringe parties if everyone decides that they only have three options to choose from and that their own value system isn't worth bringing to the table.

And if people ever do decide they have more than three viable options to vote for we will end up with a revolving government like they end up with in places in Europe where the controlling party is the one who can form the biggest coalition among the other losers because nobody gets a majority.

 

[a_majoor]

I personally don't see that VAC should be under or part of DND, since the role is to help people who are no longer part of the Forces.

If anything it should really be a clearing house for Veterans to get help from services which are already out there under various provincial health ministries, and to advocate for new or better services if the existing ones are not adequate. I might also think along the idea of having some sort of mandatory defined benefits insurance pool for CF members rather than a "black box" of bureaucrats making decisions on what and how much "help" they are willing to offer. While a pool might seem more cold hearted than the current system, knowing what you are entitled to and being able to access it with a reasonably transparent benefits application system would probably help more people faster and with an early resolution than the millstone we have around our necks now.

I do applause the fact that you are willing to work with a political party that supports your views, while I consider myself to be a small l libertarian, my past experiences with the party is akin to trying to herd cats, which is why I pragmatically support the CPC in an effort to at least get half a loaf, and look for ways to advance the ideal using the idea of "Libertarianism as a social movement" rather than a  political movement. Just remember to stay within your lanes according to the QR & O's WRT political involvement.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't think VAC should be part of DND. Why add another layer of bumbling bureaucracy to an already dysfunctional system?

 

[JS2218]

Sorry, but I'm so tired of hearing the paranoia and hysteria surrounding political activities as a CAF member. People talk about how you can't join political parties, can't volunteer, can't talk about this and that, can't sign petitions about anything, and it's all a crock of crap. I can openly criticize the CAF all I want in a private setting, and the only restriction about political parties is that you can't have an "active" role. I doubt very much anybody would try to make the case that lending my 2 cents to a political party, in private, that I am a paid member of, is openly criticizing the CAF or otherwise contravening any of the regs that I've seen, and if they did they would be unsuccessful.

I'd like you to bring this up with the bureaucrats at Chief Review Services and see what they think of your interpretation. Believe me: I know the rules, but I also know that there are certain people who are just itching to throw the book at any conservative or libertarian they can.

Thanks. As far as I know, the government has not adopted any of the recommendations which is something Vets advocate groups have been critical of?

Well the committee report was only tabled in October 2014... These things take time to work themselves out. What's important is that the government has committed to adopting all of the committee's recommendations.

 

[JS2218]

Having two DMs is along the lines of what Romeo Dallaire was suggesting I believe.

Having them fall under the Ministry of Health wouldn't work with the LPoC platform. The LPoC would repeal the Canada Health Act and give the power back to the provinces to raise their own revenues and administer their own healthcare, instead of the centralized sham of a system we have now that undermines the Constitution. If the province wants to allow private alternatives, they would be finally be able to.

Philosophically, I'm all for decentralizing as much of the federal government as possible, including abolishing Health Canada/PHAC, except for a very small contingent that would provide an advisory/coordinating role between all the provinces and the federal government. Practically, it would never happen. The Liberals and NDPers love the unionized workers that work there, and if the Conservatives ever tried they'd be accused of "dismantling Medicare" or something to that effect.

 

[ballz]

Is that you Gen Dallaire?  Why not use your own name when you post?

???

And if people ever do decide they have more than three viable options to vote for we will end up with a revolving government like they end up with in places in Europe where the controlling party is the one who can form the biggest coalition among the other losers because nobody gets a majority.

That would be a great discussion (for another topic, mind you) that I would be interested in. You seem to be chastising me, personally, for the weakness inherent to a democracy.

I do applause the fact that you are willing to work with a political party that supports your views, while I consider myself to be a small l libertarian, my past experiences with the party is akin to trying to herd cats, which is why I pragmatically support the CPC in an effort to at least get half a loaf, and look for ways to advance the ideal using the idea of "Libertarianism as a social movement" rather than a  political movement. Just remember to stay within your lanes according to the QR & O's WRT political involvement.

I only recently joined, but its sort of under "new" management. The current leadership is leading the party to be less extreme and coming up with policies that are realistic (15% flat income tax rate with a $17,000 BPE instead of say... burning down all federal government buildings and living a utopia), knowing that all this anarchist utopia stuff is both a pipe dream and never going get the party taken seriously. There's still some folk trying to pull the party in all directions but, given the membership numbers, as soon as the party "matured" a bit more people jumped on board (including myself).

I'd like you to bring this up with the bureaucrats at Chief Review Services and see what they think of your interpretation. Believe me: I know the rules, but I also know that there are certain people who are just itching to throw the book at any conservative or libertarian they can.

Being as stubborn as I am and usually learning things the hard way, I'd be happy to tell a few bureaucrats to go piss up a tree. But what I don't get about your statement is that if it's not against the rules, what good would throwing the book do? :dunno:

Philosophically, I'm all for decentralizing as much of the federal government as possible, including abolishing Health Canada/PHAC, except for a very small contingent that would provide an advisory/coordinating role between all the provinces and the federal government. Practically, it would never happen. The Liberals and NDPers love the unionized workers that work there, and if the Conservatives ever tried they'd be accused of "dismantling Medicare" or something to that effect.

It's funny. I speak to people about the LPoC's policies and I often hear "I'm all for it, but it'll never happen." This is all the more reason I think the LPoC can have influence eventually, since everyone seems to be "all for this" and "all for that." Anywho, again, best for another discussion...

 

[ballz]

If anything it should really be a clearing house for Veterans to get help from services which are already out there under various provincial health ministries, and to advocate for new or better services if the existing ones are not adequate.

Can you elaborate on this idea? I can't see how Vets stuff can be delegated down to the provinces since national defence is a federal responsibility and the vets are all over the country. If done provincially it would seem that Vet A gets good healthcare in province A but Vet B with the same issues is getting crap in province B.

I might also think along the idea of having some sort of mandatory defined benefits insurance pool for CF members rather than a "black box" of bureaucrats making decisions on what and how much "help" they are willing to offer. While a pool might seem more cold hearted than the current system, knowing what you are entitled to and being able to access it with a reasonably transparent benefits application system would probably help more people faster and with an early resolution than the millstone we have around our necks now.

I was thinking that dealing with Vets Affairs was much like filing an insurance claim? Lose 50% of hearing, get x benefits (hearing aid paid for, etc). Am I greatly mistaken?

 

[JS2218]

Being as stubborn as I am and usually learning things the hard way, I'd be happy to tell a few bureaucrats to go piss up a tree. But what I don't get about your statement is that if it's not against the rules, what good would throwing the book do? :dunno:

I agree with you that every person - military or non-military - should take part in their democracy by supporting and helping political parties. I've been through the ridiculous witch hunt process. They know that the only QR&O even remotely related to "political activities" is in chapter 19, which only says that a member of the Reg Force can't take an "active role" in a political party. So the book they'll throw at you is the DAOD on conflict of interest, which is much more vague and wide-reaching to say that ANY potential conflict of interest must be reported to them. They will conduct their witch hunt until you either a) cease your political activities; or b) resign from the CAF. It's shameful.