The case for a VAC ombudsman

Five reports from two different DND ombudsmen called the deductions ‘profoundly’ and ‘fundamentally unfair’ while the latest ombudsman Yves Cote indicates ‘the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation

By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-September 24, 2007

OTTAWA–For a soldier, the battlefield is often rendered in black and white in order to minimize the time to make that crucial decision which saves lives. For a disabled soldier, the grey and convoluted world of disability programs becomes a life-threatening obstacle course of attrition and shame. This is precisely why the unfair deductions from a soldier’s long-term disability plan known as SISIP (Service Income Security Insurance Plan) has become such a banner cause: it is a wrong which is clearly wrong.

Five reports from two different DND ombudsmen called the deductions “profoundly” and “fundamentally unfair” while the latest ombudsman Yves Cote indicates “the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation.” Parliament has passed a motion and all parties have unanimously urged a cessation to these deductions.

Meanwhile, federal bureaucrats have played a strategy of defence. As each of the bureaucratic excuses to avoid righting this wrong has been defeated in the court of public opinion, the bureaucrats have erected a new defence creating a Maginot Line of sorts. The first obstacle erected was the successful attempt to avoid any consultation or discussion on the issue. Delays eventually forced court action which provided the bureaucrats with further excuses to avoid doing the right thing.

Eventually the defence increased in density to the point where bureaucrats attempted to smother any intention to resolve the issue. This was quickly topped up with predictions of financial Armageddon should the government actually do what is right and provide the financial compensation that is necessary and fair. In this case, André Bouchard, president of SISIP, reported that the cost of doing the right thing had ballooned from $5-million annually as reported by the prior president, Pierre Lemay, to $320-million to remedy the entire problem of the unfair deductions.

Therein lies the real obstacle: money. But, is it really an obstacle? An unexplained $320-million would certainly paralyse any government. Certainly $5-million would create fewer obstacles.

Why the difference? First, SISIP was forced to reduce the amount to $275-million from $295-million by the Office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions. This amount, however, includes seven years of retroactivity as well as all costs going forward until disabled soldiers are no longer eligible for the SISIP payments at age 65. Assuming the average age of soldiers affected is 45 years old now, the plan would pay out for about 20 more years.

To get a rough idea, one merely needs to divide the seven years of retroactivity plus the 20 years going forward into $275-million to arrive at an annual cost of approximately $10-million.

When that $10-million is divided by the approximately 4,000 soldiers affected, the average annual cost is $2,500 per soldier per year for the next 20 years. Deputy ministers earn about 20 times that amount in their annual bonus.

Therefore, the unfair deductions could be stopped right now for far less than the annual cost of the salaries and bonuses of all the 50 or so deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers combined.

For many despondent disabled soldiers, especially those suffering psychological injuries, each day they must make the unwanted choice between taking a shower or taking their lives. Often, such epic personal battles are fought in quiet struggles, attempting to reintegrate into a world so very different from the military which promised to care for the soldier, no matter what.

Lately, however, many soldiers wonder why they sacrificed their health and the stability of their families. Such sacrifices seem hardly justified. Disabled soldiers must unnecessarily endure intransigent bureaucrats wearing down feckless attempts of successive governments while haphazardly creating discriminatory disability policy for the soldiers without the input of the injured soldiers. These are the same senior bureaucrats and Members of Parliament whose disability plan is free at the taxpayers’ expense and their plan is not allowed to deduct pension act disability payments.

It is time to go around the Maginot Line of excuses as disabled soldiers will never win the war against hardened and entrenched bureaucrats. Perhaps those senior Canadian officials can think about the choices a disabled soldier is making today in Halifax, Trois Rivières, Prince Albert, or, Chilliwack and then the bureaucrats can make the right choice by stopping the unfair deductions immediately.

Sean Bruyea is a disabled veteran who served 14 years with the Canadian Forces. He currently volunteers as an advocate for other disabled veterans.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/09/making-the-right-choice-for-injured-soldiers/

The Toronto Star-September 21, 2007

Sean Bruyea

Canada ‘s hidden tragedy in Afghanistan, seldom reported in detail in the media, is that at least 228 Canadians have been wounded and will likely require some form of long-term assistance for their disability in the future.

This does not include psychological injuries such as post- traumatic stress disorder, which could affect 10 per cent or more of the approximately 20,000 soldiers who have served in Afghanistan since 2002. Nor the more than 200,000 veteran and widow clients already requiring assistance.

So it should come as no surprise that Canadians want to ensure the bureaucracy is indeed caring for our soldiers and their families, including the families of the fallen.

That is why the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs was created. In February, it released a unanimously endorsed report titled A Helping Hand for Veterans: A Mandate for a Veterans Ombudsman. Admirably forthright and clear in its 22 recommendations, the report calls for an “independent, impartial and effective veterans ombudsman.”

Unfortunately, the transparent and accountable process Canadians have demanded and government has promised in creating the office has been virtually non-existent.

We do know the veterans ombudsman “will uphold the Veterans Bill of Rights and will review individual and systemic issues arising from it.” But that document, which lists six rights already guaranteed in other statutes, omits any statement of equality in the treatment of veterans. And it fails to honour the unique sacrifices Canada’s men and women in uniform have made for more than a century.

Betty Hinton, parliamentary secretary to the minister of veterans affairs, has said the Veterans Bill of Rights “is meant to be a complement. The heavy hammer is the ombudsman.”

However, it appears the process to create the veterans ombudsman has abandoned the substantive recommendations contained in the committee’s report. The ombudsman’s office will not be legislated, nor will it have the necessary robust powers of investigation, such as the power to subpoena documents and witnesses, take testimony under oath or enter any relevant premises as required.

By contrast, all Canadian provinces except Prince Edward Island have legislated ombudsmen with these important investigative powers. And the Canada Revenue Agency has announced both a Bill of Rights and an ombudsman, neither of which was mentioned in the Conservative election platform. In sharp contrast to the Veterans Bill of Rights, the CRA Bill of Rights has 20 substantive rights, most of them new.

What are Canadian soldiers in and out of uniform to think when they are repeatedly told that the Department of Veterans Affairs “exists to repay the nation’s debt of gratitude toward those whose courageous efforts have given us this legacy, and have contributed to our growth as a nation?”

The federal bureaucracy has been in control of the process for creating the ombudsman, but having the bureaucracy decide the details of its own oversight is scandalous.

Ontario Ombudsman André Marin, who also was the first Canadian Forces ombudsman, has publicly defended veterans from the “self-serving,” “hardened and entrenched bureaucracy” that “has opposed a veterans ombudsman for as long as (he) can remember.”

Like his predecessor, current Canadian Forces Ombudsman Yves Côte has emphasized that “the veterans ombudsman will require a clear and robust legislated mandate.” Legislation is imperative for “an independent, impartial and effective” ombudsman’s office.

Canadian men and women endure bullets, bombs and the resulting injuries and death to bring stability and good government to troubled nations. Senior bureaucrats should be able to endure legislated oversight to ensure our soldiers return home to good government in Canada.

http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/09/veterans-awaiting-an-ombudsman/

It turns out that all mail addressed to the minister is filtered by four political staffers and distributed to one of the almost four thousand civil servants employed by the Veterans Affairs Department.

By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-August 20, 2007

It has become a not-so-funny joke for many disabled soldiers and their families. Upon entering their local office of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) they see the following mission statement prominently displayed: To provide exemplary, client-centred services and benefits that respond to the needs of veterans, our other clients and their families.

I went to the Ottawa office of the minister of veterans affairs the other day to drop off a thank you letter. The letter concerned my disability pension, a matter that I brought to the minister’s attention 17 months ago. Part of the issue has been recently resolved.

So why would I be expressing my appreciation after a 17-month wait? Well, by current VAC standards I received a reasonable level of service. Typically the reported backlog in reimbursing disabled veterans for out-of-pocket expenses for medical care is a breakneck 10 weeks or more and initial pension decisions are running about four to six months! Each VAC caseworker has up to 1,400 veteran and widow clients.

In the meantime, veterans and their families, myself included, struggle to cope with our lives while trying to convince the bureaucracy to give us what they insist we are receiving.

My particular case would likely remain unresolved if it were not for the minister’s intervention. That is why I was bringing good news. I walked past one of the VAC posters promising “high quality services in a timely manner.”

I was buzzed into the minister’s office. The novice and confused receptionist said she had never received a letter that was destined for the minister personally.

It turns out that all mail addressed to the minister is filtered by four political staffers and distributed to one of the almost four thousand civil servants employed by the Veterans Affairs Department.

You see, the politicians don’t actually run the government. In the case of Veterans Affairs, the minister hired four political staffers, two administrative assistants, one executive assistant, one driver and seconded one bureaucrat from the department. Typically they have never spent a day in uniform (except for the driver) and have little if any experience in veterans’ issues. How can these four staffers and their support staff take on a department of almost 4,000 employees?

Well they can’t!

That is why the noble political initiative of creating a bill of rights and an ombudsman was hijacked by the very bureaucrats these initiatives were meant to oversee. The first ever Parliamentary Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, created in 2006, released its unanimously endorsed report, A Helping Hand for Veterans: A Mandate for a Veterans Ombudsman. Admirably forthright and clear in its 22 recommendations, the report calls for an “independent, impartial and effective veterans ombudsman.”

The politicians strongly recommend that the office of a veteran’s ombudsman be enshrined in law so that the office’s very existence remains immutable and therefore independent. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats ignored all of the more substantive recommendations. Who wouldn’t if you were an inmate given the chance to run the asylum?

We do know the veterans’ ombudsman “will uphold the Veterans Bill of Rights and will review individual and systemic issues arising from it.” However, anyone who has taken the time to read the six rights in 80 words will tell you it is the most underwhelming of declarations which fails to contain anything not already guaranteed in statutes. The wishy-washy document completely omits any statement of equality in the treatment of veterans, nor does it honour the unique sacrifices Canada’s men and women in uniform have made for more than a century.

Much of what I feared and loathed in the VAC bureaucracy transpired on this particular encounter with the receptionist. First, she insisted that I bring my letter to the mail room on the 14th floor even though I told her it was an important personal letter. I looked at the plaque above her head: “Our Vision: To provide exemplary service which honours the sacrifice and achievements of our veterans and clients.”

I pleaded with her to take the letter and ensure that someone deliver it directly to the minister. She refused. I asked for her name at which point she threatened to call security.

Sadly, this is the way in which many meetings between disabled veterans and Veterans Affairs end. Thus have I unfortunately comforted many of my fellow soldiers who endured similar threats while cringing beneath plaques and posters lauding VAC values and ethics: We take pride in our role as public servants and are dedicated to service excellence. We are committed to responsive, quality service, delivered with timeliness, courtesy and fairness.

I surrendered in my attempts to ensure the minister received my thank you. I went down to the 14th floor (dropped off the letter) and asked for a receipt.

Understandably, I lost the goodwill to thank the minister. I left the ominous-sounding address of 16-66 Slater St. and walked up Elgin Street to my car, chuckling ironically to myself. I started to read the plaque engraved in my mind after 10 years of banging my head against the bureaucratic wall: That which War doesn’t take from us, Veterans Affairs is only too eager to humiliate.

Sean Bruyea is a disabled veteran who served 14 years with the Canadian Forces. He now volunteers as an advocate for disabled veterans.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/08/delivering-a-personal-letter-to-the-minister-of-veterans-affairs-er-not/

By Sean Bruyea and Robert Smol-THE HILL TIMES-June 4, 2007

Since its founding 80 years ago, the Royal Canadian Legion has meant many different things to Canadians. This devoted group of men and women are behind a litany of charitable initiatives in our community ranging from wheelchair access for seniors to providing scholarships to youth.

But our most profound image of the Legion remains the elderly veteran standing in front the cenotaph on Remembrance Day. Each and every Remembrance Day we take these images home secure in the knowledge that this is an organization of veterans who stand up for fellow veterans.

It’s a façade.

The reality is that the Legion is rapidly losing its connectivity to the veteran community. Worse, on a political level, the Legion has done a complete about-turn on the one fundamental principle that defined its existence–ensuring that returning veterans, and especially disabled veterans and families, receive the best possible support that the nation can offer.

Last spring, the government began implementing a new veterans’ legislation passed by the former Liberal government without any debate by MPs. The national leadership of the Legion is on the record stating that “there should be no doubt whatsoever that the Royal Canadian Legion fully supports this initiative.” Yet to the rapidly-growing number of young, disabled veterans this new legislation represents the biggest single reversal by any Canadian government in caring for disabled veterans and their families.

Gone, forever, under this Legion-backed bill are the security and care that previous generations of disabled veterans enjoyed. Today, instead of a lifelong disability pension, the Canadian soldier limping back from Afghanistan will receive a one-time lump sum payment up to a maximum of $250,000. That may seem like a fair bit until one realizes that this amount only applies to the soldier who is 100 per cent disabled, meaning he or she has likely lost the capacity for self-care.

But, in true Orwellian absurdity, bureaucrats have actually planned for the level of disability to be suffered by those wounded at around 15 per cent which equates to a not-so golden handshake of $35,000.

Also under the Legion-backed legislation those who “took a bullet for Canada” and are disabled must enroll in a government-controlled vocational training and work placement program or risk losing individual benefits as well as healthcare for the family. Not surprisingly, this much-despised program is earning the title in the Canadian Forces and veteran community as “Canadian Forces Workfare.”

Also gone under this Legion-backed bill is the lifetime monthly “survivor” and “orphan” pensions payable to the widows of soldiers lost in combat. Tragically, after age 65, the widows of Canadian Afghan veterans will have to cope on their own in their years of most need.

All of this had the full support of the Royal Canadian Legion.

By such actions the Royal Canadian Legion has conspired with draconian government legislation and has sold out an entire generation of young veterans.

The Legion’s national executive stubbornly stands by the claim that the New Veterans Bill received widespread consultation among Legion membership. If this is true, how could the Legion membership have allowed this to happen?

Simply put, the majority of today’s Legion membership probably did not know any better as most of them are not veterans themselves. More than 60 per cent of Legion membership has never spent a day in a Canadian military uniform. The Legion membership has a myriad of different categories with the bottom line being anyone can potentially don the Legion uniform.

In all fairness, there were some in the Legion who spoke up about the new legislation. At one point, the leadership of the Legion’s Ontario Command astutely pointed out that “the process for introducing this major and very complex legislation was flawed and that it has been misleading to portray extensive and widespread scrutiny.” Ontario Command calls for “public analysis, debate and sober reflection,” something the National Legion leadership, and coincidentally, the bureaucrats, refuse to do.

Why has the Legion national leadership ignored the province which represents more than one-third of the entire Canadian membership? Such arrogance not only alienates the modern veterans but must surely make longstanding members question their loyalty to an out-of-touch national leadership.

Nevertheless, so as long as it can find a way to exist, the Royal Canadian Legion will continue to provide great value and much charitable service to the local community. And, no doubt, the Legion’s remaining branches will continue to serve as popular watering holes for local revelers.

But when it comes to today’s disabled veteran, the current reality is that the Legion’s composition, as well as its national politics, no longer validates its recognition and status as having a monopoly on promoting the welfare of the growing number of young, disabled Canadian veterans and their families.

Sean Bruyea is a disabled veteran who served 14 years as an officer with the Canadian Forces. He currently works as an advocate for other disabled veterans. Robert Smol served over 20 years as an officer with the Canadian Forces. He is currently a teacher and freelance journalist based in Toronto.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/06/royal-canadian-legion-rapidly-losing-its-connectivity-to-veteran-community/

by Sean Bruyea and Robert Smol-ESPRIT DE CORPS-Jan 2007-pg. 12

Over the last year we have seen the funerals of far too many Canadian soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan.
Not surprisingly, over 200 soldiers were wounded in Operation Athena. These newly-disabled soldiers will join the ranks of the over 150,000 serving and former Canadian Forces members who are dealing with physical and mental disabilities resulting from their military service. But those who may become disabled as a result of their service in Afghanistan will, on average, receive far less from the Canadian government than older generations of veterans.

Last year the Conservative government implemented the New Veterans Charter, which was tabled by the previous Liberal government. This new legislation is unique in that it represents the biggest single reversal by any Canadian government in caring for disabled veterans and their families.

Today, instead of a lifelong tax-free disability pension paid to disabled veterans before April 1, 2006, the Canadian soldier limping back from Afghanistan will receive a one-time lump sum payment of up to $250,000, an amount sure to widen most eyes. However, this maximum payout only applies to the soldier who is 100 per cent disabled, meaning he or she has likely lost the capacity for self-care. In Orwellian absurdity, bureaucrats have actually planned for the level of disability to be suffered by those wounded at around 14.2 per cent, which equates to a not-so-golden handshake of $35,598.

Also terminated under this new legislation is the lifetime monthly tax-free disability award paid to widows of disabled veterans. Furthermore, today’s newly-disabled veteran will no longer be entitled to income support for themselves and their survivors after they have reached age 65. Indeed, what income support is available after age 65 in the new legislation pays out less than $1,200 a month and claws back all other income including investment and interest income from what little the veteran or survivor may have saved from the modest lump-sum payment.

Since most people and all Canadian Forces veterans also qualify for CPP after 65, the program post-65 is nothing more than a facade. In the new charter, all income support is tied to participating in a government-controlled work rehabilitation plan that does not provide free university, unlike previous veterans’ programs. Veterans and their families must continue to abide by such demeaning intrusions into their dignity until age 65. It is no surprise that this part of the new legislation has earned the well-deserved nickname “CF Workfare.”

So how could the veteran community have stood by and allowed the government to pass such draconian legislation? The answer is simple; like most of the Canadian public, the veteran community was not a party to the details of the charter. In a gross distortion of Parliamentary custom and convention, the new veterans bill was fast-tracked through the House of Commons with absolutely no debate. Moreover, the previous government refused to put the veterans’ legislation before a House of Commons committee where its potential impact could have been examined in detail.

Had this happened, veterans, their families, and the health care professionals who treat them would have had a chance to address the shortcomings of the bill.

Veterans Affairs is quick to claim that the veteran community was properly consulted. In reality, a carefully selected representative from each of only six veterans organizations was provided with an abbreviated version of the bill, essentially a press release, after which they were sworn to secrecy and were not able to discuss their knowledge of the new legislation with their membership. Is this consultation?

Most likely these disabled soldiers and their families will not be begging in the streets. However, should Canadians quietly accept that the sacrifices of the men and women in Afghanistan mean less financially than the sacrifices of those who fought in the battles of World War II and the peacekeeping missions which followed? Is a veteran disabled or killed before the new charter came into effect on April 1, 2006 worth more than a veteran disabled or killed on or after April 2, 2006?

Granted, providing adequate and fair lifetime financial and healthcare assistance to young, disabled soldiers and their families is not cheap nor are the public purses bottomless. But a just and compassionate society that truly values its democratic principles must be ready to care for those who are ordered to defend those very same values and principles. Otherwise, we should think twice before we send the next contingent of troops to fight overseas.

Sean Bruyea, a disabled veteran, served 14 years as an officer with the Canadian Forces. He currently works as an advocate for other disabled veterans. Robert Smol served over 20 years as an officer with the CF. He is currently a teacher and freelance writer in Toronto.

COPYRIGHT 2007 S.R. Taylor Publishing

http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/01/the-new-veterans-charter-setting-limits-for-vets/

While politicians heap praise on our troops, Canadian soldiers disabled in Afghanistan will receive far less than those who fought in World War II

by Robert Smol and Sean Bruyea-THE TORONTO STAR-June 19, 2006-pg. A.17

Young Canadian men and women are at war in Afghanistan. Over here, many immigrants from strife-torn regions understand all too well what war is – just as do the thousands of veterans who have served in areas such as Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Korea, and France to name only a few.

But what is difficult for many Canadians, and especially young Canadian veterans, to comprehend are the reasons for what amounts to the single biggest retreat by the Canadian government in its commitment to provide benefits to disabled Canadian Forces’ veterans.

This change was implemented by the Harper government on April 1 and represents the most regressive step taken by any Canadian government in dishonouring our men and women in uniform. Under this new legislation, Canadian soldiers disabled in Afghanistan will receive far less than their fathers and grandfathers received when they returned from the battlefields of World War II.

Gone, forever, are the pensions that older disabled veterans were once entitled to receive.

As of April 2006, the disabled soldier limping back from Afghanistan or some future military operation will, instead of a pension, receive a lump sum payment up to a maximum of $250,000, something many in the veteran community fiercely oppose.

Why do so many veterans oppose such a “buyout?”

First, the $250,000 figure only applies to the former soldier who is classified as 100 per cent disabled, which, in lay terms, means that he or she must be totally incapacitated and in no way able to actively continue with his or her life in any meaningful way.

However, the bureaucracy expects and plans to pay at an average rate of only 14 per cent, or $35,000 per disabled soldier.

To add insult to injury, for today’s veterans to receive family health care and income support, they are forced to work in a government-controlled work placement or lose all benefits.

Little wonder that the new veterans’ program is quickly earning the nickname “Canadian Forces workfare.”

Added to this burden is the fact that the new veterans’ “benefits” no longer provide for a lifetime monthly disability award payable to the widows of veterans once disabled.

Also gone is income support for disabled veterans and their survivors after they have reached age 65 – an indignity older generations of Canadian veterans did not have to endure.

What income support is available in the new legislation pays out less than $1,200 a month and claws back all other income. Since most people and all Canadian Forces veterans qualify for CPP after 65, this program is nothing more than an empty decoration.

Also gone with this new legislation are programs that would allow disabled veterans to qualify for mortgage and insurance benefits that average Canadians regard as essential.

Indeed, prior generations of veterans from the two world wars and Korea could rely on such assistance merely because they were veterans – they did not have to be disabled.

If veterans of the two world wars, who served in Canada for as little as six months – and never heard a shot fired in anger – qualified for education, mortgage and insurance benefits merely because they wore a uniform, surely CF members who were wounded while serving in the hostile environments of the Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are equally deserving of such support? How could the veteran community have stood by and allowed the government to pass such draconian legislation?

Simply put we, like the rest of the Canadian public, were deliberately kept in the dark on the details of the legislation. In a perversion of parliamentary custom and convention, the new veterans’ bill was fast-tracked through the House of Commons with absolutely no debate.

In addition, the former government refused to have this new bill reviewed by committee in the Commons where its potential impact could have been scrutinized and stakeholders, including veterans, their families and the medical doctors who treat them, would have had a chance to address their concerns.

In its defence, Veterans Affairs boasted that there was adequate consultation with the veteran community on the new legislation.

What actually happened was that a carefully selected representative from each of only six veterans’ organizations were given a car salesman version of the bill – essentially a press release – after which they were sworn to secrecy. They were not able to discuss the new legislation with their membership.

Is this consultation? Do six individuals from only six veterans’ organizations who could not consult their membership have the authority to represent the wishes of the majority of veterans?

Even if these six organizations had consulted their entire membership, they represent fewer than 20 per cent of the almost 837,000 veterans and serving members, and approximately 7 per cent of the total Canadian Forces veteran and serving member population of almost 580,000.

Furthermore, the largest of these six organizations which supported the bill, the Royal Canadian Legion, today consists mainly of people who have never served in the military. Only approximately one-third of legion membership ever wore a Canadian uniform and the new benefits do not apply to them.

Perhaps, if a veterans’ ombudsman existed, such injustice could have been avoided. The current government has promised the “immediate” creation of such an office.

However, in a bizarre twist, the bureaucracy at Veterans Affairs has been given the task of writing up the plans for a veterans’ Bill of Rights and an ombudsman.

As the saying goes, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Giving this job to the very bureaucracy that requires oversight is unjust and wrong.

The inmates are running the asylum and the foxes are in charge of the hen house.

Robert Smol is a former member of the Canadian Forces. Capt (ret’d) Sean Bruyea is a disabled veteran who advocates for disabled veterans.

http://www.seanbruyea.com/2006/06/dishonouring-disabled-vets/

by Sean Bruyea and Tom Hoppe-THE NATIONAL POST-April 3, 2006-pg. A.14

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Sixty years ago, our fathers and grandfathers returned from war. In recognition of their service, they were provided with comprehensive veteran benefits. As the years passed, Canadian Forces (CF) members may have received less than Second World War veterans. But still, they were given the dignity of a lifelong pension if disabled, as well as rehabilitation and income support for their disabilities.

But the new veterans bill, C-45, which came into effect on April 1, will give less to the disabled soldier returning from Afghanistan than his father and grandfather received at the end of the two World Wars or Korea.

Under this new legislation, disabled veterans, including those returning from Afghanistan, will not be entitled to a pension, but instead will receive a lump-sum payment. The lump sum is something the veteran community opposes. It is nothing more than a callous cost-saving measure by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Furthermore, the new veterans bill no longer provides a lifetime disability award payable to widows of disabled veterans.

The new bill also removes all income support for disabled veterans and their survivors after age 65. What income support is available in the new legislation pays out less than $1,200 a month and claws back other income. Since CF veterans qualify for CPP after 65, this program is an empty decoration.

Moreover, the Canadian Forces veteran will, under this new legislation, no longer have access to government-subsidized university education. Furthermore, the new bill does not address issues such as disabled veterans’ ability to qualify for mortgage and insurance benefits that average Canadians regard as essential. Previous generations of veterans were provided such assistance for reintegration into civilian life merely because they were veterans – - they did not have to be disabled. Surely CF members who serve in the hostile environments of the Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, and were wounded, are equally deserving of such support.

The new legislation essentially ends nine decades of social conscious in caring for disabled veterans and their families for life.

Veterans, like most Canadians, realize the means of government are not endless. But one must question why the Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan will receive dramatically less than previous generations while suffering the same disabilities. We may have changed the name for war by calling it peacekeeping, but bullets and bombs cause the same damage in Afghanistan as they did on Vimy Ridge or in Normandy.

There is a critical link between the care of veterans and the ongoing operations of the Canadian Forces. CF personnel are not naive; and many know they can no longer trust the government to care for them should they become disabled.

We ask you not to implement the bill until a detailed consultation with those most directly affected by the legislation has taken place.

Sean Bruyea, Nepean, Ont.; Tom Hoppe, Kingston, Ont.

http://www.seanbruyea.com/2006/04/robbing-veterans-of-their-rights/

The case for a VAC ombudsman

By Sean Bruyea-ESPRIT DE CORPS- July 2005-pg.13

Canada declared 2005 the year of the Veteran in honour of the almost 700,000 veterans and approximately 80,000 active members of the Canadian Forces. On March 30, 2005, Andre Marin left the office of Ombudsman for National Defence and the Canadian Forces after almost seven years of groundbreaking work.

The irony is that healthy, (for the most part) employable soldiers in DND have an independent ombudsman while disabled and often unemployable veterans do not.

This “gap in oversight” did not escape the attention of Mr. Marin: “Denying to veterans access to the Ombudsman … makes little practical sense. The door should not close on them once the scope of their problem reaches into the realm of Veterans Affairs Canada.”

This reality appears lost on many in the bureaucracy of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). When someone has been disabled as a result of his/her service to Canada while serving in the Canadian Forces, he or she has a right to assistance.

In the early 1990s, processing times for favourable decisions at VAC were approaching 18 months. This sparked a public scandal resulting in a complete overhaul of the department in 1995. Although VAC has since accelerated claim process times, the real story is not quite that simple.

The modern disabled veteran often suffers from complex medical conditions with which VAC is unfamiliar. The result: initial pension awards are often far below the reality of the disabilities suffered. Minimal awards of 20 per cent or $400/ month have been quite common for disabilities that have rendered a veteran unemployable. As a consequence, psychologically and/or physically disabled veterans are forced to enter an indescribably demoralizing review and appeal process, frequently requiring three to five years or more before receiving adequate compensation.

In spite of Auditor General reports, many veterans who receive unfavourable decisions are still being directed to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) when other more efficient, less costly, and less traumatic avenues are available.

VRAB heard 6,500 cases last year, 3,400 of which received favourable decisions. Impressive numbers, but what about the more than 3,000 other cases?

A VAC ombudsman would report on systemic problems in the department, which resulted in the veteran being forced into the difficult VRAB process in the first place. An ombudsman would have the authority to investigate complaints where other mechanisms are not available, while cutting through much of the bureaucracy for the sake of not just an individual case but for the benefit of hundreds, if not thousands, of veterans to follow.

Unfortunately, the 210,000 clients of VAC do not have an ombudsman to protect them from this confusing bureaucratic steamroller. Much of the process at VAC and VRAB is far from transparent or rife with apparent conflicts of interest. For example, a veteran is represented at the VRAB hearings by a lawyer working for and responsible to VAC, consulting files maintained by National Defence and defending the case to a board, whose members are recommended by VAC. It is in this environment that an ombudsman’s office would excel.

Ironically, the main obstacle to the creation of a VAC ombudsman comes from the Royal Canadian Legion, which claims it is the only ombudsman for all veterans. Andre Marin made a distinction between the strong advocacy of the Legion and the legal mandate of an ombudsman: “To be sure, the Canadian Legion is a magnificent organization … but it is not an institutionalized ombudsman. It does not have the powers of proactive investigation, the resources, nor the professional staff, nor does it have the power to report officially to the government and the public.”

Approximately 70 to 80 per cent of veterans do not officially belong to the Legion nor to any of the more than 100 Canadian veteran organisations. A VAC ombudsman would not replace any of these organizations, but would coexist along side them, likely enhancing the value of all while simultaneously increasing the efficiency of VAC and VRAB.

Veterans Affairs regularly responds to the veteran pleading his or her case publicly with claims that they are isolated incidents while quickly moving to put out the fire. Perhaps VAC should stop putting out fires and go after the guy with the matches.

This is what an ombudsman does best.

http://www.seanbruyea.com/2005/07/the-case-for-a-vac-ombudsman/