Home
Latest imagesThe case for a VAC ombudsman
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2 
Government wages war with Parliamentary Budget Officer Page
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 07:18
While Canadians die in an effort to bring transparent and accountable government to Afghanistan, Canada’s government is waging a war to suppress transparency and accountability in Ottawa.
By Sean Bruyea-The Hill Times-Published August 3, 2009
While Canadians die in an effort to bring transparent and accountable government to Afghanistan, Canada’s government is waging a war to suppress transparency and accountability in Ottawa.
The target of our government’s rage: the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. Far too many in government are calling to restrict his power, limit his budget or even have Page removed when the exact opposite should be happening.
The Parliamentary Budget Office was created by the current federal regime to counteract the secrecy in Ottawa which has for too long been a stain upon Canada’s good, but sometimes unwarranted, reputation as an open and accountable democracy.
The Parliamentary Budget Office’s goal is to provide “authoritative, non-partisan financial and economic analysis to support Parliament … in ensuring budget transparency.” Key to “budget transparency” is that all of the office’s analyses will be “openly reported” and “freely accessible to all.”
Except many in Parliament feel that what Kevin Page writes belongs first to Parliament; then, Parliament will decide what to tell Canadians.
It has become a truism that politicians and bureaucrats never impose austerity upon themselves. Canada’s politicians and bureaucracy are bound by such ugly political realities while they all congratulate themselves for how they have managed the financial crisis in Canada.
This is where our Parliamentary budget officer brings transparency to self-congratulatory egos.
Page believes that Canada will be reaching into the pockets of our children by piling on more than $159-billion of debt between now and 2014.
Page’s report contradicts the Finance Department … and the private sector believes Page’s reports are more accurate.
Conservatives and Liberals alike have been calling to muzzle Page and his office. Parties of both sides have been attacking his efforts to inform all Canadians how government spends our money.
Unbelievably, Liberal MP Liberal Carolyn Bennett said that Page has behaved as if the reports were his property. What a curious accusation since most level-headed Canadians would likely come to the opposite conclusion.
Is it not the politicians and bureaucrats who have been acting like our money is theirs to spend as they wish? Is it not government which all too frequently has been avoiding accountability and keeping truth from the public they ostensibly serve?
Yes politics and government bureaucracy are far too dirty for most Canadians. We don’t know who or what to believe. Canadians are losing interest in democracy precisely because of this. All the more reason for Canada to protect the likes of the Parliamentary Budget Office, which makes government spending more transparent for Canadians and parliamentarians, should they be willing to listen.
Recently, 138 leading Canadian economists signed a petition to ensure that Page’s office is given the resources and powers to do his job of ensuring transparent and accountable spending in our government. The economists, for once, are correct. Page should be given greater resources and made an officer of Parliament with similar powers as the auditor general. And all officers of Parliament should deliver their reports to the Canadian public and Parliamentarians as soon as the reports are completed.
Transparency and openness are one of the few areas which must be viewed in black and white. Either Canada has an open and transparent government or we don’t. Once meddling, intimidation or special interests interfere to obscure or hide facts, the slippery slope becomes all too steep. Without transparency and openness, government cannot be accountable.
Politicians and bureaucrats need to stop making Ottawa an end in itself. Government does not belong to politicians or to the bureaucracy. It belongs to and must serve all Canadians.
The Parliamentary Budget Office is a model for Canadian and democratic values of openness and good governance, providing a window for all Canadians as to how our government spends our money. If Canadians are as truthful and honest as we like to believe, why are we allowing political and bureaucratic interests to chip and chop away at a necessary institution like the Parliamentary Budget Officer?
Canada has lost more than 100,000 lives protecting such fundamental freedoms in horrific wars. More than 130 brave young men and women have lost their lives and possibly thousands of others are physically and psychologically scarred for life in an attempt to bring similar governing principles to Afghanistan.
Should politicians and bureaucrats succeed in silencing brave public servants like Page who are truly serving the public, one must ask why have so many Canadians died or been lost to injuries when our own country tries to obscure transparency, and make a government devoid of accountability?
Make permanent Page’s Parliamentary Budget Office by making him an officer of Parliament.
No politician or bureaucrat should be allowed to selfishly hobble the truth because they wish to hide how our government spends our money in our country.
Sean Bruyea is freelance writer and a disabled soldier who served 14 years with the Canadian Forces.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2009/08/government-wages-war-with-parliamentary-budget-officer-page/
By Sean Bruyea-The Hill Times-Published August 3, 2009
While Canadians die in an effort to bring transparent and accountable government to Afghanistan, Canada’s government is waging a war to suppress transparency and accountability in Ottawa.
The target of our government’s rage: the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. Far too many in government are calling to restrict his power, limit his budget or even have Page removed when the exact opposite should be happening.
The Parliamentary Budget Office was created by the current federal regime to counteract the secrecy in Ottawa which has for too long been a stain upon Canada’s good, but sometimes unwarranted, reputation as an open and accountable democracy.
The Parliamentary Budget Office’s goal is to provide “authoritative, non-partisan financial and economic analysis to support Parliament … in ensuring budget transparency.” Key to “budget transparency” is that all of the office’s analyses will be “openly reported” and “freely accessible to all.”
Except many in Parliament feel that what Kevin Page writes belongs first to Parliament; then, Parliament will decide what to tell Canadians.
It has become a truism that politicians and bureaucrats never impose austerity upon themselves. Canada’s politicians and bureaucracy are bound by such ugly political realities while they all congratulate themselves for how they have managed the financial crisis in Canada.
This is where our Parliamentary budget officer brings transparency to self-congratulatory egos.
Page believes that Canada will be reaching into the pockets of our children by piling on more than $159-billion of debt between now and 2014.
Page’s report contradicts the Finance Department … and the private sector believes Page’s reports are more accurate.
Conservatives and Liberals alike have been calling to muzzle Page and his office. Parties of both sides have been attacking his efforts to inform all Canadians how government spends our money.
Unbelievably, Liberal MP Liberal Carolyn Bennett said that Page has behaved as if the reports were his property. What a curious accusation since most level-headed Canadians would likely come to the opposite conclusion.
Is it not the politicians and bureaucrats who have been acting like our money is theirs to spend as they wish? Is it not government which all too frequently has been avoiding accountability and keeping truth from the public they ostensibly serve?
Yes politics and government bureaucracy are far too dirty for most Canadians. We don’t know who or what to believe. Canadians are losing interest in democracy precisely because of this. All the more reason for Canada to protect the likes of the Parliamentary Budget Office, which makes government spending more transparent for Canadians and parliamentarians, should they be willing to listen.
Recently, 138 leading Canadian economists signed a petition to ensure that Page’s office is given the resources and powers to do his job of ensuring transparent and accountable spending in our government. The economists, for once, are correct. Page should be given greater resources and made an officer of Parliament with similar powers as the auditor general. And all officers of Parliament should deliver their reports to the Canadian public and Parliamentarians as soon as the reports are completed.
Transparency and openness are one of the few areas which must be viewed in black and white. Either Canada has an open and transparent government or we don’t. Once meddling, intimidation or special interests interfere to obscure or hide facts, the slippery slope becomes all too steep. Without transparency and openness, government cannot be accountable.
Politicians and bureaucrats need to stop making Ottawa an end in itself. Government does not belong to politicians or to the bureaucracy. It belongs to and must serve all Canadians.
The Parliamentary Budget Office is a model for Canadian and democratic values of openness and good governance, providing a window for all Canadians as to how our government spends our money. If Canadians are as truthful and honest as we like to believe, why are we allowing political and bureaucratic interests to chip and chop away at a necessary institution like the Parliamentary Budget Officer?
Canada has lost more than 100,000 lives protecting such fundamental freedoms in horrific wars. More than 130 brave young men and women have lost their lives and possibly thousands of others are physically and psychologically scarred for life in an attempt to bring similar governing principles to Afghanistan.
Should politicians and bureaucrats succeed in silencing brave public servants like Page who are truly serving the public, one must ask why have so many Canadians died or been lost to injuries when our own country tries to obscure transparency, and make a government devoid of accountability?
Make permanent Page’s Parliamentary Budget Office by making him an officer of Parliament.
No politician or bureaucrat should be allowed to selfishly hobble the truth because they wish to hide how our government spends our money in our country.
Sean Bruyea is freelance writer and a disabled soldier who served 14 years with the Canadian Forces.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2009/08/government-wages-war-with-parliamentary-budget-officer-page/
Guest- Guest
MPs find too much openness and accountability on the Hill
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 07:16
Tories, Liberals now trying to muzzle watchdog created to counteract secrecy
By Sean Bruyea-THE EDMONTON JOURNAL-July 26, 2009
While Canadians die in an effort to bring transparent and accountable government to Afghanistan, Canada’s government is waging a war to suppress transparency and accountability in Ottawa.
The target of our government’s rage: the parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page. Far too many in government are calling to restrict his power, limit his budget or even have Page removed when the exact opposite should be happening.
The Parliamentary Budget Office was created by the current federal regime to counteract the secrecy in Ottawa which has for too long been a stain upon Canada’s good, but sometimes unwarranted, reputation as an open and accountable democracy.
The Parliamentary Budget Office’s goal is to provide “authoritative, non-partisan financial and economic analysis to support Parliament…in ensuring budget transparency.” Key to “budget transparency” is that all of the office’s analyses will be “openly reported” and “freely accessible to all.”
Except many in Parliament feel that what Kevin Page writes belongs first to Parliament; then, Parliament will decide what to tell Canadians.
It has become a truism that politicians and bureaucrats never impose austerity upon themselves. Canada’s politicians and bureaucracy are bound by such ugly political realities while they all congratulate themselves for how they have managed the financial crisis in Canada.
This is where our parliamentary budget officer brings transparency to self-congratulatory egos.
Page believes that Canada will be reaching into the pockets of our children by piling on more than $159 billion of debt between now and 2014.
Page’s report contradicts the Finance Department…and the private sector believes Page’s reports are more accurate.
Conservatives and Liberals alike have been calling to muzzle Page and his office. Parties of both sides have been attacking his efforts to inform all Canadians how government spends our money.
Unbelievably, opposition MP Liberal Carolyn Bennett said that Page has behaved as if the reports were his property. What a curious accusation since most level-headed Canadians would likely come to the opposite conclusion.
Is it not the politicians and bureaucrats who have been acting like our money is theirs to spend as they wish? Is it not government which all too frequently has been avoiding accountability and keeping truth from the public they ostensibly serve?
Yes politics and government bureaucracy are far too dirty for most Canadians. We don’t know who or what to believe. Canadians are losing interest in democracy precisely because of this. All the more reason for Canada to protect the likes of the Parliamentary Budget Office, which makes government spending more transparent for Canadians and parliamentarians, should they be willing to listen.
Recently, 138 leading Canadian economists signed a petition to ensure that Page’s office is given the resources and powers to do his job of ensuring transparent and accountable spending in our government. The economists, for once, are correct. Page should be given greater resources and made an officer of Parliament with similar powers as the auditor general. And all officers of Parliament should deliver their reports to the Canadian public and parliamentarians as soon as the reports are completed.
Transparency and openness are one of the few areas which must be viewed in black and white. Either Canada has an open and transparent government or we don’t. Once meddling, intimidation or special interests interfere to obscure or hide facts, the slippery slope becomes all too steep. Without transparency and openness, government cannot be accountable.
Politicians and bureaucrats need to stop making Ottawa an end in itself. Government does not belong to politicians or to the bureaucracy. It belongs to and must serve all Canadians.
The Parliamentary Budget Office is a model for Canadian and democratic values of openness and good governance, providing a window for all Canadians as to how our government spends our money. If Canadians are as truthful and honest as we like to believe, why are we allowing political and bureaucratic interests to chip and chop away at a necessary institution like the Parliamentary Budget Officer?
Canada has lost more than 100,000 lives protecting such fundamental freedoms in horrific wars. More than 130 brave young men and women have lost their lives and possibly thousands of others are physically and psychologically scarred for life in an attempt to bring similar governing principles to Afghanistan.
Should politicians and bureaucrats succeed in silencing brave public servants like Page who are truly serving the public, one must ask why have so many Canadians died or been lost to injuries when our own country tries to obscure transparency, and make a government devoid of accountability?
Make permanent Page’s Parliamentary Budget Office by making him an officer of Parliament.
No politician or bureaucrat should be allowed to selfishly hobble the truth because they wish to hide how our government spends our money in our country.
Sean Bruyea is freelance writer and a disabled soldier who served 14 years with the Canadian Forces
Credit: Sean Bruyea; Freelance
Copyright CanWest Digital Media Jul 26, 2009
By Sean Bruyea-THE EDMONTON JOURNAL-July 26, 2009
While Canadians die in an effort to bring transparent and accountable government to Afghanistan, Canada’s government is waging a war to suppress transparency and accountability in Ottawa.
The target of our government’s rage: the parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page. Far too many in government are calling to restrict his power, limit his budget or even have Page removed when the exact opposite should be happening.
The Parliamentary Budget Office was created by the current federal regime to counteract the secrecy in Ottawa which has for too long been a stain upon Canada’s good, but sometimes unwarranted, reputation as an open and accountable democracy.
The Parliamentary Budget Office’s goal is to provide “authoritative, non-partisan financial and economic analysis to support Parliament…in ensuring budget transparency.” Key to “budget transparency” is that all of the office’s analyses will be “openly reported” and “freely accessible to all.”
Except many in Parliament feel that what Kevin Page writes belongs first to Parliament; then, Parliament will decide what to tell Canadians.
It has become a truism that politicians and bureaucrats never impose austerity upon themselves. Canada’s politicians and bureaucracy are bound by such ugly political realities while they all congratulate themselves for how they have managed the financial crisis in Canada.
This is where our parliamentary budget officer brings transparency to self-congratulatory egos.
Page believes that Canada will be reaching into the pockets of our children by piling on more than $159 billion of debt between now and 2014.
Page’s report contradicts the Finance Department…and the private sector believes Page’s reports are more accurate.
Conservatives and Liberals alike have been calling to muzzle Page and his office. Parties of both sides have been attacking his efforts to inform all Canadians how government spends our money.
Unbelievably, opposition MP Liberal Carolyn Bennett said that Page has behaved as if the reports were his property. What a curious accusation since most level-headed Canadians would likely come to the opposite conclusion.
Is it not the politicians and bureaucrats who have been acting like our money is theirs to spend as they wish? Is it not government which all too frequently has been avoiding accountability and keeping truth from the public they ostensibly serve?
Yes politics and government bureaucracy are far too dirty for most Canadians. We don’t know who or what to believe. Canadians are losing interest in democracy precisely because of this. All the more reason for Canada to protect the likes of the Parliamentary Budget Office, which makes government spending more transparent for Canadians and parliamentarians, should they be willing to listen.
Recently, 138 leading Canadian economists signed a petition to ensure that Page’s office is given the resources and powers to do his job of ensuring transparent and accountable spending in our government. The economists, for once, are correct. Page should be given greater resources and made an officer of Parliament with similar powers as the auditor general. And all officers of Parliament should deliver their reports to the Canadian public and parliamentarians as soon as the reports are completed.
Transparency and openness are one of the few areas which must be viewed in black and white. Either Canada has an open and transparent government or we don’t. Once meddling, intimidation or special interests interfere to obscure or hide facts, the slippery slope becomes all too steep. Without transparency and openness, government cannot be accountable.
Politicians and bureaucrats need to stop making Ottawa an end in itself. Government does not belong to politicians or to the bureaucracy. It belongs to and must serve all Canadians.
The Parliamentary Budget Office is a model for Canadian and democratic values of openness and good governance, providing a window for all Canadians as to how our government spends our money. If Canadians are as truthful and honest as we like to believe, why are we allowing political and bureaucratic interests to chip and chop away at a necessary institution like the Parliamentary Budget Officer?
Canada has lost more than 100,000 lives protecting such fundamental freedoms in horrific wars. More than 130 brave young men and women have lost their lives and possibly thousands of others are physically and psychologically scarred for life in an attempt to bring similar governing principles to Afghanistan.
Should politicians and bureaucrats succeed in silencing brave public servants like Page who are truly serving the public, one must ask why have so many Canadians died or been lost to injuries when our own country tries to obscure transparency, and make a government devoid of accountability?
Make permanent Page’s Parliamentary Budget Office by making him an officer of Parliament.
No politician or bureaucrat should be allowed to selfishly hobble the truth because they wish to hide how our government spends our money in our country.
Sean Bruyea is freelance writer and a disabled soldier who served 14 years with the Canadian Forces
Credit: Sean Bruyea; Freelance
Copyright CanWest Digital Media Jul 26, 2009
Guest- Guest
Parliament and our veterans: now’s the time for healing
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 07:15
It’s time to hold public House National Defence Committee hearings into veterans issues.
By SEAN BRUYEA-The Hill Times-Published November 24, 2008
OTTAWA—With another Remembrance Day behind us, now is the time for Parliament to pay more than lip service to truly honour those who have sacrificed so much so that Parliament can begin another session.
This year, the world commemorated 90 years since the end of “the war to end all wars.” It also marks 10 years since the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) wrapped up unprecedented hearings and released a groundbreaking report on the state of our military, and, to a much lesser degree, our veterans.
This relative omission of veterans’ issues from the SCONDVA hearings is unfortunate as Canada’s veterans and their families urgently require dedicated public hearings. Our approximately 175,000 World War II Veterans have an average age of 86. About 2,500 are dying each month. Meanwhile, each year approximately 3,000 injured younger soldiers become clients of Veterans Affairs.
The SCONDVA hearings allowed soldiers of all ranks and their families to speak honestly and publicly about how the Canadian government treated them. “Horror stories” of “flooded basements” and “mould infestations” in military housing while soldiers went to food banks due to insufficient pay shocked Canadians nationwide. The government was forced to act. Unprecedented programs were implemented to improve not only equipment but the “quality of life” of the military.
SCONDVA hearings became a healing circle of sorts for our entire nation resulting in our soldiers and families no longer having to “suck it up” while prevented from speaking publicly.
How many of our veterans, young and old, are living in such conditions? The truth is, we don’t know and we never will unless Parliament holds public hearings.
The SCONDVA hearings helped strip away multiple layers of secrecy in how DND operated. Unfortunately, much secrecy remains in the questionable methods in how Veterans Affairs creates, monitors and accepts input to the programs for which the federal department is responsible.
Nothing demonstrates that more than the process of writing and implementing the latest suite of programs christened by Veterans Affairs as the “New Veterans Charter.” The “NVC” replaced a lifelong monthly disability award with a one time lump-sum payment for soldiers injured or killed after April 1, 2006.
In spite of considerable public controversy surrounding the new programs, the “NVC” was passed without a second of debate in the House of Commons and no committee has ever reviewed the programs.
There were no public discussions about the actual legislation designing these benefits. Details were given to one or two individuals from each of only six out of 60 or more veterans’ organizations. These individuals were sworn to confidentiality from divulging any of these details to their membership. Veterans Affairs claims that briefing six to 12 individuals in secret represented the “most extensive…consultations” in the Department’s history.
Canada has suffered more than 800 casualties in Afghanistan. Most are returning home to programs which the bureaucracy refuses to publicly evaluate.
Veterans Affairs has stated that these new benefits are a “living charter” which would be actively reviewed every few months. It has been more than three years since the NVC was passed in the House of Commons without public debate and not a single change has been made.
An advisory group, (aptly named SNAG) was pushed upon Veterans Affairs as a result of an eleventh hour Senate hearing in 2005. In spite of SNAG’s three years of highly commendable work and reportedly over 150 recommendations, Veterans Affairs has not acted upon a single recommendation. The department has thus far refused to make public the minutes of meetings let alone SNAG’s reports. (Another advisory group was established this year but its members are also muzzled by confidentiality).
This year marks 25 years since the implementation of the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. Canada’s Information Commissioner, Robert Marleau, insists that “Departments should not be waiting until there is a formal request before disclosing information” and that “as servants to the public, they should be making information available as a matter of course.”
However, Veterans Affairs is the only federal department with its headquarters located outside of Ottawa (Charlottetown, P.E.I.). Perhaps this is why Canada’s first military ombudsman André Marin chastised the “self-serving,” and “hardened and entrenched bureaucracy at Veterans Affairs.”
A year ago, the first veterans’ ombudsman was appointed. The new ombudsman has yet to publish any investigation. That the ombudsman is not legislated and Veterans Affairs exercises administrative control over the office could severely compromise the office’s ability to be both independent and effective.
The ombudsman also has an advisory committee. All members are required to sign a confidentiality agreement. This “gag order” reportedly binds the members to secrecy during and for five years after they leave the committee.
Our soldiers have died protecting and creating democracy. As secrecy is the enemy of democracy, one must ask if this is the kind of democracy for which Canada’s brave men and women have sacrificed?
Canada has entered into a “social contract” with our soldiers and veterans. Our brave men and women accept “unlimited liability” including dying. Has Canada been fulfilling its side of the contract? Our soldiers have certainly upheld their end of the bargain.
Soldiers deeply love and respect their country. They have to believe Canada loves and respects them or why else were (and are) they willing to die? Soldiers would be very reluctant to speak against the government for which they were willing to sacrifice unless that government was noble enough to make a very public invitation for a healing between Canada, our veterans and their families.
Veterans Affairs claims its “clients” are mostly satisfied. Yet every year thousands apply for treatment and services in a convoluted system that creates more problems than it resolves and leaves many veterans in worse condition than before.
Public hearings will honour our government’s commitment to our veterans while honouring our veterans’ commitment to Canada. The first Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, thankfully created by this government, is in a perfect position to hold these public hearings.
Our veterans, young and old, and their families have a story to tell and we all have some healing to do. It is obvious that wars have not ended and more than 115,000 have died on battlefields for our right to free speech and open democracy. Let’s allow our veterans and their families to exercise their hard-fought rights in SCONDVA-style public hearings before it is too late.
Sean Bruyea is a freelance journalist and advocate for the rights of disabled veterans and their families. He served 14 years in the Canadian Air Force as an intelligence officer. He is disabled as a result of his service in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/11/parliament-and-our-veterans-nows-the-time-for-healing/
By SEAN BRUYEA-The Hill Times-Published November 24, 2008
OTTAWA—With another Remembrance Day behind us, now is the time for Parliament to pay more than lip service to truly honour those who have sacrificed so much so that Parliament can begin another session.
This year, the world commemorated 90 years since the end of “the war to end all wars.” It also marks 10 years since the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) wrapped up unprecedented hearings and released a groundbreaking report on the state of our military, and, to a much lesser degree, our veterans.
This relative omission of veterans’ issues from the SCONDVA hearings is unfortunate as Canada’s veterans and their families urgently require dedicated public hearings. Our approximately 175,000 World War II Veterans have an average age of 86. About 2,500 are dying each month. Meanwhile, each year approximately 3,000 injured younger soldiers become clients of Veterans Affairs.
The SCONDVA hearings allowed soldiers of all ranks and their families to speak honestly and publicly about how the Canadian government treated them. “Horror stories” of “flooded basements” and “mould infestations” in military housing while soldiers went to food banks due to insufficient pay shocked Canadians nationwide. The government was forced to act. Unprecedented programs were implemented to improve not only equipment but the “quality of life” of the military.
SCONDVA hearings became a healing circle of sorts for our entire nation resulting in our soldiers and families no longer having to “suck it up” while prevented from speaking publicly.
How many of our veterans, young and old, are living in such conditions? The truth is, we don’t know and we never will unless Parliament holds public hearings.
The SCONDVA hearings helped strip away multiple layers of secrecy in how DND operated. Unfortunately, much secrecy remains in the questionable methods in how Veterans Affairs creates, monitors and accepts input to the programs for which the federal department is responsible.
Nothing demonstrates that more than the process of writing and implementing the latest suite of programs christened by Veterans Affairs as the “New Veterans Charter.” The “NVC” replaced a lifelong monthly disability award with a one time lump-sum payment for soldiers injured or killed after April 1, 2006.
In spite of considerable public controversy surrounding the new programs, the “NVC” was passed without a second of debate in the House of Commons and no committee has ever reviewed the programs.
There were no public discussions about the actual legislation designing these benefits. Details were given to one or two individuals from each of only six out of 60 or more veterans’ organizations. These individuals were sworn to confidentiality from divulging any of these details to their membership. Veterans Affairs claims that briefing six to 12 individuals in secret represented the “most extensive…consultations” in the Department’s history.
Canada has suffered more than 800 casualties in Afghanistan. Most are returning home to programs which the bureaucracy refuses to publicly evaluate.
Veterans Affairs has stated that these new benefits are a “living charter” which would be actively reviewed every few months. It has been more than three years since the NVC was passed in the House of Commons without public debate and not a single change has been made.
An advisory group, (aptly named SNAG) was pushed upon Veterans Affairs as a result of an eleventh hour Senate hearing in 2005. In spite of SNAG’s three years of highly commendable work and reportedly over 150 recommendations, Veterans Affairs has not acted upon a single recommendation. The department has thus far refused to make public the minutes of meetings let alone SNAG’s reports. (Another advisory group was established this year but its members are also muzzled by confidentiality).
This year marks 25 years since the implementation of the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. Canada’s Information Commissioner, Robert Marleau, insists that “Departments should not be waiting until there is a formal request before disclosing information” and that “as servants to the public, they should be making information available as a matter of course.”
However, Veterans Affairs is the only federal department with its headquarters located outside of Ottawa (Charlottetown, P.E.I.). Perhaps this is why Canada’s first military ombudsman André Marin chastised the “self-serving,” and “hardened and entrenched bureaucracy at Veterans Affairs.”
A year ago, the first veterans’ ombudsman was appointed. The new ombudsman has yet to publish any investigation. That the ombudsman is not legislated and Veterans Affairs exercises administrative control over the office could severely compromise the office’s ability to be both independent and effective.
The ombudsman also has an advisory committee. All members are required to sign a confidentiality agreement. This “gag order” reportedly binds the members to secrecy during and for five years after they leave the committee.
Our soldiers have died protecting and creating democracy. As secrecy is the enemy of democracy, one must ask if this is the kind of democracy for which Canada’s brave men and women have sacrificed?
Canada has entered into a “social contract” with our soldiers and veterans. Our brave men and women accept “unlimited liability” including dying. Has Canada been fulfilling its side of the contract? Our soldiers have certainly upheld their end of the bargain.
Soldiers deeply love and respect their country. They have to believe Canada loves and respects them or why else were (and are) they willing to die? Soldiers would be very reluctant to speak against the government for which they were willing to sacrifice unless that government was noble enough to make a very public invitation for a healing between Canada, our veterans and their families.
Veterans Affairs claims its “clients” are mostly satisfied. Yet every year thousands apply for treatment and services in a convoluted system that creates more problems than it resolves and leaves many veterans in worse condition than before.
Public hearings will honour our government’s commitment to our veterans while honouring our veterans’ commitment to Canada. The first Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, thankfully created by this government, is in a perfect position to hold these public hearings.
Our veterans, young and old, and their families have a story to tell and we all have some healing to do. It is obvious that wars have not ended and more than 115,000 have died on battlefields for our right to free speech and open democracy. Let’s allow our veterans and their families to exercise their hard-fought rights in SCONDVA-style public hearings before it is too late.
Sean Bruyea is a freelance journalist and advocate for the rights of disabled veterans and their families. He served 14 years in the Canadian Air Force as an intelligence officer. He is disabled as a result of his service in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/11/parliament-and-our-veterans-nows-the-time-for-healing/
Guest- Guest
Canada must provide support for soldiers
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 07:06
By Sean Bruyea-THE EDMONTON JOURNAL-November 15, 2008-pg. A.19
Most Canadians look upon military heroism with a combination of fascination and horror. As such, most of us understandably shy away from the question as to why Canadian men and women are willing to sacrifice their lives.
It is a truism and a cliche that soldiers (sailors and airmen/women included) have fought and sacrificed for “King and Country.” Such reflex explanations of sacrifice paint a dim view of the intellectual capacities of our brave men and women who have fought in Canada’s name.
There is another short answer to this profound question of the willingness to sacrifice: Men and women in uniform have been willing to die for something bigger and better than themselves, end of answer.
Yes, King (or monarch) and country are all bigger than each individual soldier. They are greater extensions of the family, the tribe; that which gives us protection, meaning and ultimately, a sense of immortality through honoured memory. These reasons are bigger, but are they better than the individual soldier?
Canadians make the conscious choice to enter the military, knowing full well that society may require the ultimate sacrifice. At the same time, our soldiers are intelligent people who understand the complexities of weaponry, command structures, communications, tactics and technology, all while adapting to a changing battlefield.
It is not blindly that a soldier enters the military. Nor can the soldier be burdened with weighing each military demand with “to be or not to be.” The soldier must know that the reason for sacrifice is as immutable and certain as human and divine reason can devise. Otherwise, to enter an existential debate every time an order is given would surely lead to a collapse of morale and the psychological stability of the individual.
Welcome the role of indoctrination. Basic training and military life are filled with references to duty, honour and sacrifice for Canada and Canadians. The indoctrination begins even before we join. We often hear the message of how Canada is a good, fair, just and democratic country. When we turn on the news, we thank our particular divinity that we don’t live in one of those Third World countries stricken by strife and turmoil.
Perhaps the most powerful indoctrination message is that which is implied in the pillar of military ethos: following the orders of government. Intrinsic to this unquestioning loyalty is the truism of democracies that the military is the tool of government. By implication, the military is somehow lesser than government.
Obeying government is an essential ingredient of what has come to be known as the “social contract.” In this contract, soldiers unquestionably accept death. This is what is known as “unlimited liability.” Soldiers accept unlimited liability as long as the political and bureaucratic masters promise to uphold their end of the bargain. For the soldier, this social contract has at its foundation a profound sense of faith and trust in the government to care for the lives of each and every soldier and the families who survive them.
Canada’s most famous Remembrance Day poem, In Flanders Fields articulates this contract:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep…
It is to Canadians and the Canadian government that the fallen have thrown the torch.
But what happens when the Canadian government, through budget constraints or poorly planned military action places the welfare of the soldier lower on the priority list? If soldiers are willing to give all they have in carrying out the government’s orders, should the government not reciprocate and give the soldiers all they need to carry out those orders?
Throughout the year, not just on Remembrance Day, another question must be asked: When the soldiers return wounded and broken, should the government not do all they can to care for the soldiers/veterans and their families? The government can’t have it both ways, sending soldiers to sacrifice while having a very limited liability in caring for these vulnerable Canadians.
Such a breach of contract is, at its heart, a profound betrayal of all that the soldier has sacrificed. War, for soldiers, must be the ultimate arbiter of justice. As such, it is fundamentally unjust that bureaucratic obstacles be erected which prevent caring for the wounded and the survivors to the best of Canada’s abilities.
When a soldier breaks the contract and refuses to fight, the soldier can be charged with the most shameful of military crimes — refusing to obey a direct order, or even desertion. When the government breaks its contract and refuses to provide the best care and assistance in an expeditious and just manner, the elected officials and bureaucrats suffer little or no consequence.
Yes, soldiers are willing to sacrifice their lives for Canada and Canadians. Are Canadians willing to sacrifice in order to care for the wounded, the fallen and their survivors? If not, can we afford to send our soldiers into battle without first anticipating all the costs of war, even those costs we are obligated to pay long after the war has ended?
Sean Bruyea is a freelance journalist and advocate for the rights of disabled veterans and their families. Sean served 14 years in the Canadian Air Force as an Intelligence Officer. He is disabled as a result of his service in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.
Credit: Sean Bruyea; Freelance
Copyright Southam Publications Inc. Nov 15, 2008
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/11/canada-must-provide-support-for-soldiers/
Most Canadians look upon military heroism with a combination of fascination and horror. As such, most of us understandably shy away from the question as to why Canadian men and women are willing to sacrifice their lives.
It is a truism and a cliche that soldiers (sailors and airmen/women included) have fought and sacrificed for “King and Country.” Such reflex explanations of sacrifice paint a dim view of the intellectual capacities of our brave men and women who have fought in Canada’s name.
There is another short answer to this profound question of the willingness to sacrifice: Men and women in uniform have been willing to die for something bigger and better than themselves, end of answer.
Yes, King (or monarch) and country are all bigger than each individual soldier. They are greater extensions of the family, the tribe; that which gives us protection, meaning and ultimately, a sense of immortality through honoured memory. These reasons are bigger, but are they better than the individual soldier?
Canadians make the conscious choice to enter the military, knowing full well that society may require the ultimate sacrifice. At the same time, our soldiers are intelligent people who understand the complexities of weaponry, command structures, communications, tactics and technology, all while adapting to a changing battlefield.
It is not blindly that a soldier enters the military. Nor can the soldier be burdened with weighing each military demand with “to be or not to be.” The soldier must know that the reason for sacrifice is as immutable and certain as human and divine reason can devise. Otherwise, to enter an existential debate every time an order is given would surely lead to a collapse of morale and the psychological stability of the individual.
Welcome the role of indoctrination. Basic training and military life are filled with references to duty, honour and sacrifice for Canada and Canadians. The indoctrination begins even before we join. We often hear the message of how Canada is a good, fair, just and democratic country. When we turn on the news, we thank our particular divinity that we don’t live in one of those Third World countries stricken by strife and turmoil.
Perhaps the most powerful indoctrination message is that which is implied in the pillar of military ethos: following the orders of government. Intrinsic to this unquestioning loyalty is the truism of democracies that the military is the tool of government. By implication, the military is somehow lesser than government.
Obeying government is an essential ingredient of what has come to be known as the “social contract.” In this contract, soldiers unquestionably accept death. This is what is known as “unlimited liability.” Soldiers accept unlimited liability as long as the political and bureaucratic masters promise to uphold their end of the bargain. For the soldier, this social contract has at its foundation a profound sense of faith and trust in the government to care for the lives of each and every soldier and the families who survive them.
Canada’s most famous Remembrance Day poem, In Flanders Fields articulates this contract:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep…
It is to Canadians and the Canadian government that the fallen have thrown the torch.
But what happens when the Canadian government, through budget constraints or poorly planned military action places the welfare of the soldier lower on the priority list? If soldiers are willing to give all they have in carrying out the government’s orders, should the government not reciprocate and give the soldiers all they need to carry out those orders?
Throughout the year, not just on Remembrance Day, another question must be asked: When the soldiers return wounded and broken, should the government not do all they can to care for the soldiers/veterans and their families? The government can’t have it both ways, sending soldiers to sacrifice while having a very limited liability in caring for these vulnerable Canadians.
Such a breach of contract is, at its heart, a profound betrayal of all that the soldier has sacrificed. War, for soldiers, must be the ultimate arbiter of justice. As such, it is fundamentally unjust that bureaucratic obstacles be erected which prevent caring for the wounded and the survivors to the best of Canada’s abilities.
When a soldier breaks the contract and refuses to fight, the soldier can be charged with the most shameful of military crimes — refusing to obey a direct order, or even desertion. When the government breaks its contract and refuses to provide the best care and assistance in an expeditious and just manner, the elected officials and bureaucrats suffer little or no consequence.
Yes, soldiers are willing to sacrifice their lives for Canada and Canadians. Are Canadians willing to sacrifice in order to care for the wounded, the fallen and their survivors? If not, can we afford to send our soldiers into battle without first anticipating all the costs of war, even those costs we are obligated to pay long after the war has ended?
Sean Bruyea is a freelance journalist and advocate for the rights of disabled veterans and their families. Sean served 14 years in the Canadian Air Force as an Intelligence Officer. He is disabled as a result of his service in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.
Credit: Sean Bruyea; Freelance
Copyright Southam Publications Inc. Nov 15, 2008
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/11/canada-must-provide-support-for-soldiers/
Guest- Guest
Cheating; our injured soldiers
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 07:04
by Sean Bruyea-ESPRIT DE CORPS-May 2008-p. 12
Whether or not we agree with the Afghan mission, Canadians are united in standing behind the returning injured soldiers and their families. While the CF has retained many injured soldiers and even provided retraining into other trades, once the uniform comes off, many disabled soldiers have to fight another war, this time with Canadian bureaucrats.
Since October 2000, changes to veterans’ legislation allowed all serving wounded soldiers to collect their flail salary plus pain and suffering payments from Veterans Affairs. If the soldier is too wounded as to be unemployable, he/she is forced out of the military and put on SISIP, the insurance plan paid into by all CF members, which pays a reduced salary of 75 per cent of the soldier’s previous income. To add insult to injury, Veterans Affairs’ pain and suffering payments are deducted from the new, lower income.
This injustice attracted the attention of Andre Marin, former military ombudsman. Marin submitted a report to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) in 2003 calling for an end to the deductions. SCONDVA unanimously passed a motion imploring the minister of National Defence to stop the deductions. Ironically, the current minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, as well as the current prime minister, president of the Treasury Board and minister of Veterans Affairs were all associate members of that committee when the motion was passed.
Five successive follow-up reports and letters from both Marin and his successor, Yves Cote, have called on the government to cease these “fundamentally” and “profoundly unfair” deductions. The House of Commons went so far as to pass the Veterans First Motion in the fall of 2006, which called for an end to the unfair deductions. Minister O’Connor subsequently promised to resolve the issue.
And yet nothing has been done to right this wrong. The reason is simple: bureaucrats standing in the way have little idea what it means to serve in the military let alone suffer a life-changing disability. Ironically, these same senior bureaucrats receive free disability plans–paid for by Canadian taxpayers–and their plan does not deduct pain and suffering payments.
The bureaucrats have instead constructed a Maginot Line of obstinacy and insensitivity. As a result, a class action lawsuit has been filed to stop the unfair deductions. According to an affidavit from Andre Bouchard, the president of SISIP who in fact served in the military for almost 30 years, if SISIP were to stop deducting pain and suffering payments, the result would be “exorbitant premiums which would impose significant hardship on the members of the Canadian Forces.”
But how “exorbitant” would the higher premiums actually be? Currently, a corporal in the military pays approximately $9.40 per month for the long-term disability policy. Bouchard predicts that premiums would increase by 40 per cent, or just $3.76 per month–the price of a latte.
Minister MacKay claimed the government cannot comment on the issue as it is before the courts. This did not stop Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson from telling the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs in March that righting this wrong would “take a complete overhaul of the entire system” and the cost “across government departments would be in the billions of dollars to stop the deductions.”
Such fearmongering is music to the bureaucrats’ ears and a horror film for any governing party. However, those who informed Minister Thompson on this matter are clearly wrong.
What senior bureaucrats likely fail to understand is the fundamental difference between income replacement and damages compensating members for pain and suffering. SISIP is an income replacement plan. Veterans Affairs payments are paid to compensate for pain and suffering. Fair practice does not allow one category to be deducted from the other category. SISIP is reportedly the only long-term disability plan to cross that line.
Even the MP’s long-term disability plan does not allow the deduction of Veterans Affairs pain and suffering payments. Why the double standard?
During his term Cote commissioned an independent report to verify whether the deductions were unfair. The report concluded that “considering that fairness is priceless, do apply without reservation” the recommendation to stop the deductions. According to the author, Bernard Dussault, the cost of $10 million annually or approximately $290 million over the lifetime of the 4,200 injured soldiers affected is a “relatively minimal one-time expenditure that would resolve a critical fairness issue.” Dussault should know; he was the chief actuary of Canada from 1992 to 1998.
Our disabled soldiers deserve better than discrimination. If not, one day Canadian Forces recruiting centres may be empty. Canada will then have no one willing to pay the price to protect us because Canada was not willing to pay the price to take care of our daughters and sons when they returned from war.
Sean Bruyea, a retired captain and disabled soldier who served 14 years in the CF, is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/05/cheating-our-injured-soldiers/
Whether or not we agree with the Afghan mission, Canadians are united in standing behind the returning injured soldiers and their families. While the CF has retained many injured soldiers and even provided retraining into other trades, once the uniform comes off, many disabled soldiers have to fight another war, this time with Canadian bureaucrats.
Since October 2000, changes to veterans’ legislation allowed all serving wounded soldiers to collect their flail salary plus pain and suffering payments from Veterans Affairs. If the soldier is too wounded as to be unemployable, he/she is forced out of the military and put on SISIP, the insurance plan paid into by all CF members, which pays a reduced salary of 75 per cent of the soldier’s previous income. To add insult to injury, Veterans Affairs’ pain and suffering payments are deducted from the new, lower income.
This injustice attracted the attention of Andre Marin, former military ombudsman. Marin submitted a report to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) in 2003 calling for an end to the deductions. SCONDVA unanimously passed a motion imploring the minister of National Defence to stop the deductions. Ironically, the current minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, as well as the current prime minister, president of the Treasury Board and minister of Veterans Affairs were all associate members of that committee when the motion was passed.
Five successive follow-up reports and letters from both Marin and his successor, Yves Cote, have called on the government to cease these “fundamentally” and “profoundly unfair” deductions. The House of Commons went so far as to pass the Veterans First Motion in the fall of 2006, which called for an end to the unfair deductions. Minister O’Connor subsequently promised to resolve the issue.
And yet nothing has been done to right this wrong. The reason is simple: bureaucrats standing in the way have little idea what it means to serve in the military let alone suffer a life-changing disability. Ironically, these same senior bureaucrats receive free disability plans–paid for by Canadian taxpayers–and their plan does not deduct pain and suffering payments.
The bureaucrats have instead constructed a Maginot Line of obstinacy and insensitivity. As a result, a class action lawsuit has been filed to stop the unfair deductions. According to an affidavit from Andre Bouchard, the president of SISIP who in fact served in the military for almost 30 years, if SISIP were to stop deducting pain and suffering payments, the result would be “exorbitant premiums which would impose significant hardship on the members of the Canadian Forces.”
But how “exorbitant” would the higher premiums actually be? Currently, a corporal in the military pays approximately $9.40 per month for the long-term disability policy. Bouchard predicts that premiums would increase by 40 per cent, or just $3.76 per month–the price of a latte.
Minister MacKay claimed the government cannot comment on the issue as it is before the courts. This did not stop Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson from telling the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs in March that righting this wrong would “take a complete overhaul of the entire system” and the cost “across government departments would be in the billions of dollars to stop the deductions.”
Such fearmongering is music to the bureaucrats’ ears and a horror film for any governing party. However, those who informed Minister Thompson on this matter are clearly wrong.
What senior bureaucrats likely fail to understand is the fundamental difference between income replacement and damages compensating members for pain and suffering. SISIP is an income replacement plan. Veterans Affairs payments are paid to compensate for pain and suffering. Fair practice does not allow one category to be deducted from the other category. SISIP is reportedly the only long-term disability plan to cross that line.
Even the MP’s long-term disability plan does not allow the deduction of Veterans Affairs pain and suffering payments. Why the double standard?
During his term Cote commissioned an independent report to verify whether the deductions were unfair. The report concluded that “considering that fairness is priceless, do apply without reservation” the recommendation to stop the deductions. According to the author, Bernard Dussault, the cost of $10 million annually or approximately $290 million over the lifetime of the 4,200 injured soldiers affected is a “relatively minimal one-time expenditure that would resolve a critical fairness issue.” Dussault should know; he was the chief actuary of Canada from 1992 to 1998.
Our disabled soldiers deserve better than discrimination. If not, one day Canadian Forces recruiting centres may be empty. Canada will then have no one willing to pay the price to protect us because Canada was not willing to pay the price to take care of our daughters and sons when they returned from war.
Sean Bruyea, a retired captain and disabled soldier who served 14 years in the CF, is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/05/cheating-our-injured-soldiers/
Guest- Guest
Stop the insanity: let’s end discrimination against disabled Canadian soldiers
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 07:02
Many disabled soldiers suspect their sacrifices are less important than sacrificing those dollars necessary to pay for the human cost of war.
By SEAN BRUYEA-The Hill Times-Published April 7, 2008
Whether or not we agree or disagree with the Afghan mission, Canadians are united in standing behind the returning injured soldiers and their families who need all the support available. That is why it is shocking to hear the federal minister, responsible for the “care, treatment or re-establishment” of wounded soldiers, imply that it could be “lucrative” to have a disability.
Last month, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson appeared in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. The committee noted the minister had omitted in his presentation the issue of ending the deductions of Veterans Affairs payments for pain and suffering from the soldiers’ long-term disability plan known as SISIP. The minister hypothetically responded: ” ‘I am disabled, so I should get that little extra benefit’. The other thing is…some in the insurance business will argue that if you make it lucrative for someone to have a disability, it has a downward effect on the program as a whole.”
The comment escaped all in opposition except for NDP MP Peter Stoffer, his party’s veterans affairs critic, “I am incensed that Minister Thompson would infer that making changes to SISIP could be lucrative for someone to have a disability,” said Stoffer, who is also vice-chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. “This statement is completely insulting to military personnel who were injured while serving their country and to all disabled Canadians. At no time is it ever lucrative to have a disability. Thompson should immediately apologize.”
Although other Parliamentarians remained silent, disabled soldiers were quick to respond. “It infuriates me,” explains Dennis Manuge, the injured soldier who initiated a class action lawsuit to stop the unfair deductions. “It perpetuates the shame we feel as military members when we are disabled. We are quickly labelled as ‘sick, lame, and lazy.’ We try hard to shake that kind of discrimination but [the minister's comments] are feeding right into that.”
Others in the field of disability take similar offence. “I can’t imagine any scenario … that anybody would consider having a disability lucrative,” explains Tom Merriam, president and CEO of Abilities Foundation, an Easter Seals affiliated charity in Nova Scotia assisting people with physical disabilities. “It’s a very unfortunate choice of words. Not only anybody with a disability but anybody whose role is to serve people with disabilities would find that terminology quite inappropriate.”
The minister’s comments only fuel what disabled soldiers have long suspected: that soldiers’ sacrifices are less important than sacrificing those dollars necessary to pay for the human cost of war. There is little doubt that the minister was likely repeating words fed to him by senior bureaucrats who have been the obstacles to righting this fundamental injustice since an all parties unanimously voted to stop the deductions back in 2003.
What is remarkable are the minister’s subsequent comments. The issue of a single unique and distinct insurance plan, SISIP, and its isolated policy of deducting pain and suffering payments was tangled with perceived inequities to be found in every income replacement program at all levels of government throughout Canada. “Therefore, that clawback position [for SISIP] exists and it would have to be adjusted—actually, the cost across government departments would be in the billions of dollars to readjust it,” the minister explained, “It would take a complete overhaul of the entire system to allow that change to occur. It would be too expensive.”
Perhaps not as obvious as the slap in the face that disabilities are “lucrative,” this comment is far more damaging to disabled persons at a more profound level. This is about hope to improve the system. The rigorous standards all disability programs place on disabled individuals often worsen the condition of those applying. “It’s awfully overwhelming,” says Mike Raymond, who is being forced out of the CF due to his disabilities. Raymond has served in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, and Afghanistan. “These are tough programs to get in the first place and then the clawback issue kicks in.”
Would it be “too expensive” and would it “take a complete overhaul of the entire system” to stop the discriminatory deductions? This is the first time anyone has ever publicly claimed such a heavy price. What started out as a $5 million annual bill to stop the deductions in 2003 escalated into a one-time cost of up to $295 million and has now ballooned into a multi-billion-dollar nightmare.
Such disinformation is a calculated risk on the government’s part which could easily backfire if Canadians are given the facts.
The first two numbers were correct. It was originally going to cost $5-million annually. The government delayed fixing the problem so long that more disabled soldiers entered the system (Afghanistan?) raising the cost to $10-million annually. Since about $95-million is retroactivity, the remaining $200-million pays for all injured soldiers on the plan until they reach age 65, or about another 20 years ($10-million per year multiplied by 20 years, equals $200-million).
One government employee who wishes to remain anonymous indicated that since the government writes the rules for insurance, the entire $200-million can be promised on an annual basis, thereby not requiring the money up front.
The previous DND ombudsman, Yves Cote, commissioned an independent report to double check whether the deductions were ‘unfair.’ Bernard Dussault wrote, “Considering that fairness is priceless, do apply without reservation the … recommendation [to stop the deductions]. An argument could be made that the cost of the … recommendation may appear very large when compared to its original estimate, but it is actually a relatively minimal one-time expenditure that would resolve a critical fairness issue affecting one of the most important group of Canadians, i.e. those who, through their job, risk their lives. This is a priceless risk that is mostly paid for only to those actually affected by the military risk as opposed to all those exposed to it.”
Dussault should know. He was the chief actuary of Canada from 1992 to 1998 and is responsible for signing off on the Government Actuarial Reports for CPP, Old Age Security, the CF and Public Service Life Insurance and Pension Plans not to mention the Pension Plan for MPs.
What senior bureaucrats in this matter likely fail to understand is the fundamental difference between income replacement and damages compensating members for pain and suffering. SISIP is an income replacement plan. Veterans Affairs payments are paid to compensate for pain and suffering. Fair practice does not allow one category to be deducted from the other category. SISIP is reportedly the only long-term disability plan to cross that line.
All Members of Parliament and senior bureaucrats who are standing in the way of fixing this problem need merely turn to their own long-term disability plan paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Chapter 4.8.15 of the Insurance Administration manual states, “Long-term disability benefits will not be offset by: (a) disability payments to a veteran under the Pension Act.”
There is no need to overhaul all government programs. Like the MPs’ disability plan, Workers Compensation in Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Manitoba, and New Brunswick are also not allowed to deduct Veterans Affairs Pension Act payments. To imply otherwise is a bad faith insult to the very specific population of 4,000 soldiers affected by the unfair deduction.
And yet the deductions continue in spite of more than five reports and letters from two different DND Ombudsmen, calls from the Royal Canadian Legion and a majority vote in the House of Commons in the fall of 2006 to stop the deductions. Interestingly, Minister Thompson, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay were all associate members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs in 2003 when it unanimously urged then Minister of National Defence to stop the deductions.
To do otherwise sends a most tragic message of lost hope to our disabled soldiers and disabled Canadians in general. “We are concerned about the general public awareness [of] the contribution persons with disabilities make to our communities,” continues Mr. Merriam. “It is really important that you do what you can to do those people justice in the way they are described so as to not demean their situation. It is bad enough dealing with the disability without dealing with the fallout from the disability.”
Shame on those bureaucrats who misinform our elected officials. Shame on those Parliamentarians who swallow whatever our senior bureaucrats toss in the pond. Our disabled soldiers deserve better than discrimination. If not, one day the Canadian Forces recruiting centres may be empty. Canada will then have no one willing to pay the price to protect us because Canada was not willing to pay the price to take care of our daughters and sons when they returned from war. Please, stop the unfair deductions from soldiers’ long-term disability now.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an Intelligence Officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/04/stop-the-insanity-lets-end-discrimination-against-disabled-canadian-soldiers/
By SEAN BRUYEA-The Hill Times-Published April 7, 2008
Whether or not we agree or disagree with the Afghan mission, Canadians are united in standing behind the returning injured soldiers and their families who need all the support available. That is why it is shocking to hear the federal minister, responsible for the “care, treatment or re-establishment” of wounded soldiers, imply that it could be “lucrative” to have a disability.
Last month, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson appeared in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs. The committee noted the minister had omitted in his presentation the issue of ending the deductions of Veterans Affairs payments for pain and suffering from the soldiers’ long-term disability plan known as SISIP. The minister hypothetically responded: ” ‘I am disabled, so I should get that little extra benefit’. The other thing is…some in the insurance business will argue that if you make it lucrative for someone to have a disability, it has a downward effect on the program as a whole.”
The comment escaped all in opposition except for NDP MP Peter Stoffer, his party’s veterans affairs critic, “I am incensed that Minister Thompson would infer that making changes to SISIP could be lucrative for someone to have a disability,” said Stoffer, who is also vice-chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. “This statement is completely insulting to military personnel who were injured while serving their country and to all disabled Canadians. At no time is it ever lucrative to have a disability. Thompson should immediately apologize.”
Although other Parliamentarians remained silent, disabled soldiers were quick to respond. “It infuriates me,” explains Dennis Manuge, the injured soldier who initiated a class action lawsuit to stop the unfair deductions. “It perpetuates the shame we feel as military members when we are disabled. We are quickly labelled as ‘sick, lame, and lazy.’ We try hard to shake that kind of discrimination but [the minister's comments] are feeding right into that.”
Others in the field of disability take similar offence. “I can’t imagine any scenario … that anybody would consider having a disability lucrative,” explains Tom Merriam, president and CEO of Abilities Foundation, an Easter Seals affiliated charity in Nova Scotia assisting people with physical disabilities. “It’s a very unfortunate choice of words. Not only anybody with a disability but anybody whose role is to serve people with disabilities would find that terminology quite inappropriate.”
The minister’s comments only fuel what disabled soldiers have long suspected: that soldiers’ sacrifices are less important than sacrificing those dollars necessary to pay for the human cost of war. There is little doubt that the minister was likely repeating words fed to him by senior bureaucrats who have been the obstacles to righting this fundamental injustice since an all parties unanimously voted to stop the deductions back in 2003.
What is remarkable are the minister’s subsequent comments. The issue of a single unique and distinct insurance plan, SISIP, and its isolated policy of deducting pain and suffering payments was tangled with perceived inequities to be found in every income replacement program at all levels of government throughout Canada. “Therefore, that clawback position [for SISIP] exists and it would have to be adjusted—actually, the cost across government departments would be in the billions of dollars to readjust it,” the minister explained, “It would take a complete overhaul of the entire system to allow that change to occur. It would be too expensive.”
Perhaps not as obvious as the slap in the face that disabilities are “lucrative,” this comment is far more damaging to disabled persons at a more profound level. This is about hope to improve the system. The rigorous standards all disability programs place on disabled individuals often worsen the condition of those applying. “It’s awfully overwhelming,” says Mike Raymond, who is being forced out of the CF due to his disabilities. Raymond has served in the Persian Gulf, Somalia, and Afghanistan. “These are tough programs to get in the first place and then the clawback issue kicks in.”
Would it be “too expensive” and would it “take a complete overhaul of the entire system” to stop the discriminatory deductions? This is the first time anyone has ever publicly claimed such a heavy price. What started out as a $5 million annual bill to stop the deductions in 2003 escalated into a one-time cost of up to $295 million and has now ballooned into a multi-billion-dollar nightmare.
Such disinformation is a calculated risk on the government’s part which could easily backfire if Canadians are given the facts.
The first two numbers were correct. It was originally going to cost $5-million annually. The government delayed fixing the problem so long that more disabled soldiers entered the system (Afghanistan?) raising the cost to $10-million annually. Since about $95-million is retroactivity, the remaining $200-million pays for all injured soldiers on the plan until they reach age 65, or about another 20 years ($10-million per year multiplied by 20 years, equals $200-million).
One government employee who wishes to remain anonymous indicated that since the government writes the rules for insurance, the entire $200-million can be promised on an annual basis, thereby not requiring the money up front.
The previous DND ombudsman, Yves Cote, commissioned an independent report to double check whether the deductions were ‘unfair.’ Bernard Dussault wrote, “Considering that fairness is priceless, do apply without reservation the … recommendation [to stop the deductions]. An argument could be made that the cost of the … recommendation may appear very large when compared to its original estimate, but it is actually a relatively minimal one-time expenditure that would resolve a critical fairness issue affecting one of the most important group of Canadians, i.e. those who, through their job, risk their lives. This is a priceless risk that is mostly paid for only to those actually affected by the military risk as opposed to all those exposed to it.”
Dussault should know. He was the chief actuary of Canada from 1992 to 1998 and is responsible for signing off on the Government Actuarial Reports for CPP, Old Age Security, the CF and Public Service Life Insurance and Pension Plans not to mention the Pension Plan for MPs.
What senior bureaucrats in this matter likely fail to understand is the fundamental difference between income replacement and damages compensating members for pain and suffering. SISIP is an income replacement plan. Veterans Affairs payments are paid to compensate for pain and suffering. Fair practice does not allow one category to be deducted from the other category. SISIP is reportedly the only long-term disability plan to cross that line.
All Members of Parliament and senior bureaucrats who are standing in the way of fixing this problem need merely turn to their own long-term disability plan paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Chapter 4.8.15 of the Insurance Administration manual states, “Long-term disability benefits will not be offset by: (a) disability payments to a veteran under the Pension Act.”
There is no need to overhaul all government programs. Like the MPs’ disability plan, Workers Compensation in Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Manitoba, and New Brunswick are also not allowed to deduct Veterans Affairs Pension Act payments. To imply otherwise is a bad faith insult to the very specific population of 4,000 soldiers affected by the unfair deduction.
And yet the deductions continue in spite of more than five reports and letters from two different DND Ombudsmen, calls from the Royal Canadian Legion and a majority vote in the House of Commons in the fall of 2006 to stop the deductions. Interestingly, Minister Thompson, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay were all associate members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs in 2003 when it unanimously urged then Minister of National Defence to stop the deductions.
To do otherwise sends a most tragic message of lost hope to our disabled soldiers and disabled Canadians in general. “We are concerned about the general public awareness [of] the contribution persons with disabilities make to our communities,” continues Mr. Merriam. “It is really important that you do what you can to do those people justice in the way they are described so as to not demean their situation. It is bad enough dealing with the disability without dealing with the fallout from the disability.”
Shame on those bureaucrats who misinform our elected officials. Shame on those Parliamentarians who swallow whatever our senior bureaucrats toss in the pond. Our disabled soldiers deserve better than discrimination. If not, one day the Canadian Forces recruiting centres may be empty. Canada will then have no one willing to pay the price to protect us because Canada was not willing to pay the price to take care of our daughters and sons when they returned from war. Please, stop the unfair deductions from soldiers’ long-term disability now.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an Intelligence Officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/04/stop-the-insanity-lets-end-discrimination-against-disabled-canadian-soldiers/
Guest- Guest
Homecoming: a new direction to welcome our soldiers back into Canadian society
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:56
We invest millions of dollars and decades into a complex process to ‘transform’ the civilian into a soldier. So why is there so little to help the soldier retransform back into a civilian?
By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-March 10, 2008
Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have been engaged in some of the most intensive combat since Korea. Those Canadians who have never worn a uniform see the military with a vacillating proportion of awe, fascination and incomprehension.
But the soldiers were once civilians. We invest hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars over years and decades in a complex process to “transform” the civilian into a soldier. Why is there so little to help the soldier retransform back into a civilian?
We have forgotten how to welcome back our men and women who gave up so much in uniform so that others can loathe the idea of ever putting one on.
The military, Veterans Affairs and the Canadian public are now learning that while a soldier takes off the uniform he/she may psychologically never leave the military. And that is not only a problem for the veteran; it is a problem for society. Soldiers are not reintegrating back into civilian life as successfully as hoped. Why should they?
It is easy to understand why soldiers think in different ways from the rest of society. The first thing that greets the civilian recruit is months of constant bombardment with indoctrination, drills, sleep deprivation, mental and physical obstacle courses, trust, confidence, and skill-building exercises and a host of other tools which allow Canadian soldiers to become the fine examples they set for the world.
“The military becomes you and you become the military,” explains Dr. Augustine Meier, professor of psychology at St. Paul’s University. “It’s not just a way of thinking; it is a way of being.”
The change from civilian to military life is profoundly transformative and goes far beyond education or job training. Experiences of combat in peacekeeping operations or wartime only reinforce this new “way of being.” Over the past decade and-a-half, many soldiers have served in multiple operations such as the Gulf War, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Such experiences reinforce the transformative process, expanding the gulf between soldier and civilian.
And yet the complex and lengthy process to create the soldier is quickly forgotten in trying to unmake the soldier. There has been much talk and some successes in rehabilitation with a focus on job training and placement. This is valuable, but employment is just one part of rehabilitation. The other sorely-needed component is a method of retransforming soldiers back into civilians.
“Everybody must transition, everybody must take the uniform off,” says retired Sergeant Tom Hoppe, who completed his masters in leadership and organizational management. “We don’t realize until the uniform comes off that all of a sudden we have all these feelings we don’t understand.”
Helping the soldier “understand” must transcend seminars and “talk-therapy.” The next step must be taken. We must create a program of courses, follow-up, coaching and what Dr. Meier calls “transformative therapy.” All this would go beyond job placement while assisting the military member retransform into civilian life. The goal would be to cultivate a strong sense of trust and belonging between the veteran and society.
In creating a soldier, the individual is immersed in an experiential environment in order to establish life-giving and life-saving trust with peers, subordinates, supervisors, the unit and the military as a whole. Trust, experiential training and a strong sense of belonging are the keys which help ensure survival and mission success.
This same experiential approach can be integrated into a “homecoming” course. Instead of military-only participants, civilians, including local businesses and family of the military member, could learn together, act together, and rely upon each other to accomplish tasks, build trust, and develop a sense of belonging. In this way, military members can learn to establish a newfound and appropriate level of trust with civilian culture. Civilian culture can then better understand the military forge in which the soldier was created.
Soldiers know the military will manage pay, healthcare, relocation, career planning, training/retraining, paperwork and a myriad of other administrative and professional services. This allows the military to devote more of the individual to the “unlimited liability” all soldiers must accept whatever the mission.
Understandably, the soldier may expect civilian life to take on these same responsibilities. However, the course and its follow-up components would help the releasing soldiers know at a deeper level, not just cerebral, what society can be trusted to provide and what the soldiers must learn and relearn to manage their lives. Communities may also develop new ways to provide services and support which benefit more than just the veteran.
Imagine a network of courses run throughout Canada. Government, businesses and communities, large and small, would send participants who would help the soldier and the community and eventually society grow through this mutual retransformation.
On an individual level, soldiers would be ‘life-coached’ for more than just retraining and employment. The most effective coaches would be veterans and some civilians having in-depth experience with the military culture. It would be imperative that the coaches successfully make or profoundly understand the psychological and emotional process in transitioning to civilian life.
Training in relevant areas of rehabilitation/psychology would allow the coaches to develop trust with the soldiers during what can be a frightening process to leave behind decades of indoctrination and security.
“There needs to be assistance to enter civilian life which acts as an adjunct to what is already in place,” says retired naval lieutenant and nurse, Louise Richard. “In order to build trust and be effective, assistance to soldiers leaving the military needs to operate at a different level than what is currently offered.”
A coordination of resources would allow the creation of this much-needed evolutionary process in recognizing the obstacles faced by military members rejoining society. Of course Veterans Affairs, National Defence, the Operational Stress Injury Support System, and experts in rehabilitation/psychology will be necessary components. However, the most important architects of this reintegration plan would be the soldiers, their families and the members from the communities they will join.
Everyone benefits from successful reintegration. The soldier has a higher quality of life while maximizing education and work potential. The family is more stable and supportive. The community grows in understanding and society has a valuable new participant.
Often, popular culture has been quicker than government at responding to the problems plaguing ex-military as they reintegrate back into civilian life. The other night, my wife and I watched the 1946 Hollywood movie, The Best Years of Our Lives. Made just as the Second World War ended, the movie poignantly tracks the experiences of three service members as they struggle to re-enter civilian life. Instrumental to their reconnection with civilian society is a delicate balance between self-discovery and hands-on involvement by the civilian support systems. Civilians learn they must actively welcome back the infantryman, the sailor and the airman. In this way both the veterans and the civilians learn from each other and all are positively transformed by the experience.
More than 60 years later we must relearn what we once knew in helping our military return home.
The time is ripe to implement a transformative way of welcoming back our military men and women into the homes, schools, and workplaces. They need our time and effort just as much as our lives depend on their sacrifice. However, for those that survive, they sacrifice more than just their health or time away from families. Soldiers sacrifice that sense of trust and belonging they once shared with “civil society” but must now rejoin as fundamentally different individuals.
For most, if not all, who have served in the military, it is a “way of being,” thinking and valuing life, deeply rich with reward and satisfaction. There is no reason why we cannot make the years our soldiers spend after the uniform comes off even more richly rewarding and satisfying as those years they sacrificed protecting us.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/03/homecoming-a-new-direction-to-welcome-our-soldiers-back-into-canadian-society/
By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-March 10, 2008
Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have been engaged in some of the most intensive combat since Korea. Those Canadians who have never worn a uniform see the military with a vacillating proportion of awe, fascination and incomprehension.
But the soldiers were once civilians. We invest hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars over years and decades in a complex process to “transform” the civilian into a soldier. Why is there so little to help the soldier retransform back into a civilian?
We have forgotten how to welcome back our men and women who gave up so much in uniform so that others can loathe the idea of ever putting one on.
The military, Veterans Affairs and the Canadian public are now learning that while a soldier takes off the uniform he/she may psychologically never leave the military. And that is not only a problem for the veteran; it is a problem for society. Soldiers are not reintegrating back into civilian life as successfully as hoped. Why should they?
It is easy to understand why soldiers think in different ways from the rest of society. The first thing that greets the civilian recruit is months of constant bombardment with indoctrination, drills, sleep deprivation, mental and physical obstacle courses, trust, confidence, and skill-building exercises and a host of other tools which allow Canadian soldiers to become the fine examples they set for the world.
“The military becomes you and you become the military,” explains Dr. Augustine Meier, professor of psychology at St. Paul’s University. “It’s not just a way of thinking; it is a way of being.”
The change from civilian to military life is profoundly transformative and goes far beyond education or job training. Experiences of combat in peacekeeping operations or wartime only reinforce this new “way of being.” Over the past decade and-a-half, many soldiers have served in multiple operations such as the Gulf War, Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Such experiences reinforce the transformative process, expanding the gulf between soldier and civilian.
And yet the complex and lengthy process to create the soldier is quickly forgotten in trying to unmake the soldier. There has been much talk and some successes in rehabilitation with a focus on job training and placement. This is valuable, but employment is just one part of rehabilitation. The other sorely-needed component is a method of retransforming soldiers back into civilians.
“Everybody must transition, everybody must take the uniform off,” says retired Sergeant Tom Hoppe, who completed his masters in leadership and organizational management. “We don’t realize until the uniform comes off that all of a sudden we have all these feelings we don’t understand.”
Helping the soldier “understand” must transcend seminars and “talk-therapy.” The next step must be taken. We must create a program of courses, follow-up, coaching and what Dr. Meier calls “transformative therapy.” All this would go beyond job placement while assisting the military member retransform into civilian life. The goal would be to cultivate a strong sense of trust and belonging between the veteran and society.
In creating a soldier, the individual is immersed in an experiential environment in order to establish life-giving and life-saving trust with peers, subordinates, supervisors, the unit and the military as a whole. Trust, experiential training and a strong sense of belonging are the keys which help ensure survival and mission success.
This same experiential approach can be integrated into a “homecoming” course. Instead of military-only participants, civilians, including local businesses and family of the military member, could learn together, act together, and rely upon each other to accomplish tasks, build trust, and develop a sense of belonging. In this way, military members can learn to establish a newfound and appropriate level of trust with civilian culture. Civilian culture can then better understand the military forge in which the soldier was created.
Soldiers know the military will manage pay, healthcare, relocation, career planning, training/retraining, paperwork and a myriad of other administrative and professional services. This allows the military to devote more of the individual to the “unlimited liability” all soldiers must accept whatever the mission.
Understandably, the soldier may expect civilian life to take on these same responsibilities. However, the course and its follow-up components would help the releasing soldiers know at a deeper level, not just cerebral, what society can be trusted to provide and what the soldiers must learn and relearn to manage their lives. Communities may also develop new ways to provide services and support which benefit more than just the veteran.
Imagine a network of courses run throughout Canada. Government, businesses and communities, large and small, would send participants who would help the soldier and the community and eventually society grow through this mutual retransformation.
On an individual level, soldiers would be ‘life-coached’ for more than just retraining and employment. The most effective coaches would be veterans and some civilians having in-depth experience with the military culture. It would be imperative that the coaches successfully make or profoundly understand the psychological and emotional process in transitioning to civilian life.
Training in relevant areas of rehabilitation/psychology would allow the coaches to develop trust with the soldiers during what can be a frightening process to leave behind decades of indoctrination and security.
“There needs to be assistance to enter civilian life which acts as an adjunct to what is already in place,” says retired naval lieutenant and nurse, Louise Richard. “In order to build trust and be effective, assistance to soldiers leaving the military needs to operate at a different level than what is currently offered.”
A coordination of resources would allow the creation of this much-needed evolutionary process in recognizing the obstacles faced by military members rejoining society. Of course Veterans Affairs, National Defence, the Operational Stress Injury Support System, and experts in rehabilitation/psychology will be necessary components. However, the most important architects of this reintegration plan would be the soldiers, their families and the members from the communities they will join.
Everyone benefits from successful reintegration. The soldier has a higher quality of life while maximizing education and work potential. The family is more stable and supportive. The community grows in understanding and society has a valuable new participant.
Often, popular culture has been quicker than government at responding to the problems plaguing ex-military as they reintegrate back into civilian life. The other night, my wife and I watched the 1946 Hollywood movie, The Best Years of Our Lives. Made just as the Second World War ended, the movie poignantly tracks the experiences of three service members as they struggle to re-enter civilian life. Instrumental to their reconnection with civilian society is a delicate balance between self-discovery and hands-on involvement by the civilian support systems. Civilians learn they must actively welcome back the infantryman, the sailor and the airman. In this way both the veterans and the civilians learn from each other and all are positively transformed by the experience.
More than 60 years later we must relearn what we once knew in helping our military return home.
The time is ripe to implement a transformative way of welcoming back our military men and women into the homes, schools, and workplaces. They need our time and effort just as much as our lives depend on their sacrifice. However, for those that survive, they sacrifice more than just their health or time away from families. Soldiers sacrifice that sense of trust and belonging they once shared with “civil society” but must now rejoin as fundamentally different individuals.
For most, if not all, who have served in the military, it is a “way of being,” thinking and valuing life, deeply rich with reward and satisfaction. There is no reason why we cannot make the years our soldiers spend after the uniform comes off even more richly rewarding and satisfying as those years they sacrificed protecting us.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/03/homecoming-a-new-direction-to-welcome-our-soldiers-back-into-canadian-society/
Guest- Guest
Injured Soldiers are Not Disposable
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:54
By Sean Bruyea – HALIFAX CHRONICLE HERALD-Published: 2008-03-06
No doubt thousands of cards and good wishes were sent to soldiers on the frontlines in Afghanistan for Valentine’s Day. Back home, a different expression of affection is being shown more than 4,200 injured soldiers whom the bureaucrats and policy makers would rather Canada forgot.
Last month on Valentine’s Day, a Halifax courtroom wrapped up a request to certify a class-action lawsuit to stop the federal government deducting pain and suffering payments from disabled soldiers’ long-term disability plan. SISIP or the Service Income Security Insurance Plan is reportedly the only plan of its kind which deducts pain and suffering payments.
Why should Canadians care? Canada has suffered approximately 750 casualties in Afghanistan. The next federal election could be fought on whether or not to risk the lives of more Canadian soldiers. At a time when $20 billion has been earmarked for new military equipment, many disabled military members are quickly forgotten once the uniform comes off.
Of the 4,260 soldiers affected by what the National Defence Ombudsman has called “profoundly” and “fundamentally unfair” deductions, more than 1,500 are currently so disabled as to be unemployable. These are the most vulnerable of our military, suffering psychological and physical incapacity as a result of serving in such conflicts as the Gulf War, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
Since these soldiers were wounded as a result of their service in the military, they receive pain and suffering payments from Veterans Affairs Canada. In October 2000, changes to legislation permitted serving soldiers to collect their full salary plus pain and suffering payments.
If the soldier is so wounded as to be unemployable, the soldier is forced out of the military, has his/her salary reduced to 75 per cent of their income while deducting pain and suffering payments from the lower income.
The injustice attracted the attention of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs; in 2003 it passed a motion imploring the Minister of National Defence to stop the deductions and “accept and enact the recommendations forthwith.”
Ironically, the current minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, as well as the Prime Minister, the president of the Treasury Board and the minister of Veterans Affairs were all associate members of this committee when the motion was passed.
New programs stipulate that soldiers injured after April 1, 2006 receive a one-time lump sum payment for pain and suffering instead of a life-long monthly disability award. This lump sum payment is not deducted from the long-term disability, but the monthly payment continues to be deducted.
In November 2006, a majority in the House of Commons passed the Veterans’ First Motion sponsored by MP Peter Stoffer, which called for an end to the “unfair deductions.”
Why has nothing been done? One can only imagine that the bureaucrats standing in the way have little idea of what it means to serve in the military. Unlike the 9- to-5 public servant, the military member effectively signs a contract with Canada for what our military calls “unlimited liability.” Not surprisingly, the bureaucrats have ensured that Canada has a very limited liability in caring for disabled soldiers.
These same senior bureaucrats receive their disability plan free, paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Interestingly, their plan is not allowed to deduct pain and suffering payments. Unlike the Public Service, neither the military nor the veterans have a union to protect them.
In court, the judge received an affidavit from the president of SISIP, André Bouchard, who served in the military for “almost 30 years.” Mr. Bouchard claims that should the plan stop deducting pain and suffering payments, the result would be “exorbitant premiums which would impose significant hardship on the members of the Canadian Forces.”
How “exorbitant” is this hardship? Currently, a corporal in the military pays approximately $9.40 per month for the long-term disability policy. Mr. Bouchard predicts that premiums would increase by 40 per cent or $3.76 a month, the price of a café latte.
Mr. Bouchard makes further excuses to continue the unfair deductions because a disabled soldier “could effectively receive more than 100 per cent of his or her former income.” This statement is patently untrue. The “former income” included pain and suffering payments, plus 100 per cent of their salary. The long-term disability pays only 75 per cent of the former salary.
Furthermore, for many of these disabled soldiers, they were forced out of the military when there was a pay freeze. The same corporal would be earning approximately 50 per cent more today than 10 years ago, whereas SISIP has only increased approximately 20 per cent. (SISIP allows for an annual inflationary increase of a maximum of two per cent vs. the public service plan at three per cent).
Senior federal public servants on rehabilitation can earn up to 100 per cent of their former income and still collect their Veterans Affairs payments if the servant had been previously injured in the military. Why the double standard?
Such obvious discrimination led the previous DND Ombudsman, Yves Coté, to state “the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation, as well as the protection of the equality provisions set out in section 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination.”
We have all seen the signs of a disposable society, but this has been possible because replacements are cheap and the long-term costs are not included. The same holds true for soldiers. We have too long disposed of those when they are obsolete, once wounded psychologically or physically.
Canada must renew the broken trust with these forgotten 4,200 soldiers by giving back the money that has been wrongfully taken from them. Only then will the soldiers consider trusting the very society for which the soldiers have sacrificed so much.
’At a time when $20 billion has been earmarked for new military equipment, many disabled military members are quickly forgotten once the uniform comes off.’
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
Original Article available on ChronicleHerald.ca (may require subscription or archival access)
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/03/injured-soldiers-are-not-disposable/
No doubt thousands of cards and good wishes were sent to soldiers on the frontlines in Afghanistan for Valentine’s Day. Back home, a different expression of affection is being shown more than 4,200 injured soldiers whom the bureaucrats and policy makers would rather Canada forgot.
Last month on Valentine’s Day, a Halifax courtroom wrapped up a request to certify a class-action lawsuit to stop the federal government deducting pain and suffering payments from disabled soldiers’ long-term disability plan. SISIP or the Service Income Security Insurance Plan is reportedly the only plan of its kind which deducts pain and suffering payments.
Why should Canadians care? Canada has suffered approximately 750 casualties in Afghanistan. The next federal election could be fought on whether or not to risk the lives of more Canadian soldiers. At a time when $20 billion has been earmarked for new military equipment, many disabled military members are quickly forgotten once the uniform comes off.
Of the 4,260 soldiers affected by what the National Defence Ombudsman has called “profoundly” and “fundamentally unfair” deductions, more than 1,500 are currently so disabled as to be unemployable. These are the most vulnerable of our military, suffering psychological and physical incapacity as a result of serving in such conflicts as the Gulf War, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
Since these soldiers were wounded as a result of their service in the military, they receive pain and suffering payments from Veterans Affairs Canada. In October 2000, changes to legislation permitted serving soldiers to collect their full salary plus pain and suffering payments.
If the soldier is so wounded as to be unemployable, the soldier is forced out of the military, has his/her salary reduced to 75 per cent of their income while deducting pain and suffering payments from the lower income.
The injustice attracted the attention of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs; in 2003 it passed a motion imploring the Minister of National Defence to stop the deductions and “accept and enact the recommendations forthwith.”
Ironically, the current minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, as well as the Prime Minister, the president of the Treasury Board and the minister of Veterans Affairs were all associate members of this committee when the motion was passed.
New programs stipulate that soldiers injured after April 1, 2006 receive a one-time lump sum payment for pain and suffering instead of a life-long monthly disability award. This lump sum payment is not deducted from the long-term disability, but the monthly payment continues to be deducted.
In November 2006, a majority in the House of Commons passed the Veterans’ First Motion sponsored by MP Peter Stoffer, which called for an end to the “unfair deductions.”
Why has nothing been done? One can only imagine that the bureaucrats standing in the way have little idea of what it means to serve in the military. Unlike the 9- to-5 public servant, the military member effectively signs a contract with Canada for what our military calls “unlimited liability.” Not surprisingly, the bureaucrats have ensured that Canada has a very limited liability in caring for disabled soldiers.
These same senior bureaucrats receive their disability plan free, paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Interestingly, their plan is not allowed to deduct pain and suffering payments. Unlike the Public Service, neither the military nor the veterans have a union to protect them.
In court, the judge received an affidavit from the president of SISIP, André Bouchard, who served in the military for “almost 30 years.” Mr. Bouchard claims that should the plan stop deducting pain and suffering payments, the result would be “exorbitant premiums which would impose significant hardship on the members of the Canadian Forces.”
How “exorbitant” is this hardship? Currently, a corporal in the military pays approximately $9.40 per month for the long-term disability policy. Mr. Bouchard predicts that premiums would increase by 40 per cent or $3.76 a month, the price of a café latte.
Mr. Bouchard makes further excuses to continue the unfair deductions because a disabled soldier “could effectively receive more than 100 per cent of his or her former income.” This statement is patently untrue. The “former income” included pain and suffering payments, plus 100 per cent of their salary. The long-term disability pays only 75 per cent of the former salary.
Furthermore, for many of these disabled soldiers, they were forced out of the military when there was a pay freeze. The same corporal would be earning approximately 50 per cent more today than 10 years ago, whereas SISIP has only increased approximately 20 per cent. (SISIP allows for an annual inflationary increase of a maximum of two per cent vs. the public service plan at three per cent).
Senior federal public servants on rehabilitation can earn up to 100 per cent of their former income and still collect their Veterans Affairs payments if the servant had been previously injured in the military. Why the double standard?
Such obvious discrimination led the previous DND Ombudsman, Yves Coté, to state “the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation, as well as the protection of the equality provisions set out in section 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination.”
We have all seen the signs of a disposable society, but this has been possible because replacements are cheap and the long-term costs are not included. The same holds true for soldiers. We have too long disposed of those when they are obsolete, once wounded psychologically or physically.
Canada must renew the broken trust with these forgotten 4,200 soldiers by giving back the money that has been wrongfully taken from them. Only then will the soldiers consider trusting the very society for which the soldiers have sacrificed so much.
’At a time when $20 billion has been earmarked for new military equipment, many disabled military members are quickly forgotten once the uniform comes off.’
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
Original Article available on ChronicleHerald.ca (may require subscription or archival access)
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/03/injured-soldiers-are-not-disposable/
Guest- Guest
Disposable soldiers: Canada must renew broken trust with its forgotten 4,260 soldiers
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:51
Of the 4,260 soldiers affected by what the National Defence ombudsman has called ‘profoundly’ and ‘fundamentally unfair’ deductions, more than 1,500 are currently so disabled as to be unemployable.
By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-February 25, 2008
No doubt thousands of cards and good wishes were sent to soldiers on the frontlines in Afghanistan for Valentine’s Day recently. Back home, a different expression of affection is being shown more than 4,260 injured soldiers whom the bureaucrats and policy makers would rather Canada forgot.
Two weeks ago on Valentine’s Day, a Halifax courtroom wrapped up a request to certify a class action lawsuit to stop the federal government deducting pain and suffering payments from disabled soldiers’ long-term disability plan. SISIP or the Service Income Security Insurance Plan is reportedly the only plan of its kind which deducts pain and suffering payments.
Why should Canadians care? Canada has suffered approximately 750 casualties in Afghanistan. The next federal election could be fought on whether or not to risk the lives of more Canadian soldiers. At a time when $20-billion has been earmarked for new military equipment, many disabled military members are quickly forgotten once the uniform comes off.
Of the 4,260 soldiers affected by what the National Defence ombudsman has called “profoundly” and “fundamentally unfair” deductions, more than 1,500 are currently so disabled as to be unemployable. These are the most vulnerable of our military, suffering psychological and physical incapacity as a result of serving in such conflicts as the Gulf War, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.
Since these soldiers were wounded as a result of their service in the military, they receive pain and suffering payments from Veterans Affairs Canada. In October 2000, changes to legislation permitted serving soldiers to collect their full salary plus pain and suffering payments. If the soldier is so wounded as to be unemployable, the soldier is forced out of the military, has his/her salary reduced to 75 per cent of their income while deducting pain and suffering payments from the lower income.
The injustice attracted the attention of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs in 2003 passed a motion imploring the minister of National Defence to stop the deductions and “accept and enact the recommendations forthwith.” Ironically, the current minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, as well as the Prime Minister, the president of the Treasury Board and the minister of Veterans Affairs were all associate members of this committee when the motion was passed.
New programs stipulate that soldiers injured after April 1, 2006, receive a one-time lump sum payment for pain and suffering instead of a lifelong monthly disability award. This lump sum payment is not deducted from the long-term disability, but the monthly payment continues to be deducted.
In November of 2006, a majority in the House of Commons passed the Veterans’ First Motion which called for a stop to the “unfair deductions.”
Why has nothing been done? One can only imagine that the bureaucrats standing in the way have little idea of what it means to serve in the military. Unlike the 9-to-5 public servant, the military member effectively signs a contract with Canada for what our military calls “unlimited liability.” Not surprisingly, the bureaucrats have ensured that Canada has a very limited liability in caring for disabled soldiers.
These same senior bureaucrats receive their disability plan free, paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Interestingly, their plan is not allowed to deduct pain and suffering payments.
Neither the military nor the veterans have a union to protect them.
In court, the judge received an affidavit from the president of SISIP, André Bouchard, who served in the military for “almost 30 years.” Bouchard claims that should the plan stop deducting pain and suffering payments, the result would be “exorbitant premiums which would impose significant hardship on the members of the Canadian Forces.”
How “exorbitant” is this hardship? Currently, a corporal in the military pays approximately $9.40 per month for the long-term disability policy. Bouchard predicts that premiums would increase by 40 per cent or $3.76/month, the price of a café latte.
Bouchard makes further excuses to continue the ‘unfair deductions’ because a disabled soldier “could effectively receive more than 100 per cent of his or her former income.” This statement is patently untrue. The “former income” included pain and suffering payments plus 100 per cent of their salary. The long-term disability pays only 75 per cent of the former salary.
Furthermore, for many of these disabled soldiers, they were forced out of the military when there was a pay freeze. The same corporal would be earning approximately 50 per cent more today than 10 years ago whereas SISIP has only increased approximately 20 per cent. (SISIP allows for an annual inflationary increase of a maximum of two per cent vs. the public service plan at three per cent).
A senior federal public servant on rehabilitation can earn up to 100 per cent of their former income and still collect their Veterans Affairs payments had the servant been previously injured in the military.
Why the double standard?
Such obvious discrimination led the previous DND Ombudsman Yves Coté to state “the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation, as well as the protection of the equality provisions set out in Sec. 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination.”
We have all seen the signs of a disposable society but this has been possible because replacements are cheap and the long-term costs are not included. The same holds true for soldiers. We have too long disposed of those when they are obsolete once wounded psychologically or physically.
Canada must renew the broken trust with these forgotten 4,260 soldiers by giving back the money that has been wrongfully taken from them. Only then will the soldiers consider trusting the very society for which the soldiers have sacrificed so much.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/02/disposable-soldiers-canada-must-renew-broken-trust-with-its-forgotten-4260-soldiers/
By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-February 25, 2008
No doubt thousands of cards and good wishes were sent to soldiers on the frontlines in Afghanistan for Valentine’s Day recently. Back home, a different expression of affection is being shown more than 4,260 injured soldiers whom the bureaucrats and policy makers would rather Canada forgot.
Two weeks ago on Valentine’s Day, a Halifax courtroom wrapped up a request to certify a class action lawsuit to stop the federal government deducting pain and suffering payments from disabled soldiers’ long-term disability plan. SISIP or the Service Income Security Insurance Plan is reportedly the only plan of its kind which deducts pain and suffering payments.
Why should Canadians care? Canada has suffered approximately 750 casualties in Afghanistan. The next federal election could be fought on whether or not to risk the lives of more Canadian soldiers. At a time when $20-billion has been earmarked for new military equipment, many disabled military members are quickly forgotten once the uniform comes off.
Of the 4,260 soldiers affected by what the National Defence ombudsman has called “profoundly” and “fundamentally unfair” deductions, more than 1,500 are currently so disabled as to be unemployable. These are the most vulnerable of our military, suffering psychological and physical incapacity as a result of serving in such conflicts as the Gulf War, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan.
Since these soldiers were wounded as a result of their service in the military, they receive pain and suffering payments from Veterans Affairs Canada. In October 2000, changes to legislation permitted serving soldiers to collect their full salary plus pain and suffering payments. If the soldier is so wounded as to be unemployable, the soldier is forced out of the military, has his/her salary reduced to 75 per cent of their income while deducting pain and suffering payments from the lower income.
The injustice attracted the attention of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs in 2003 passed a motion imploring the minister of National Defence to stop the deductions and “accept and enact the recommendations forthwith.” Ironically, the current minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, as well as the Prime Minister, the president of the Treasury Board and the minister of Veterans Affairs were all associate members of this committee when the motion was passed.
New programs stipulate that soldiers injured after April 1, 2006, receive a one-time lump sum payment for pain and suffering instead of a lifelong monthly disability award. This lump sum payment is not deducted from the long-term disability, but the monthly payment continues to be deducted.
In November of 2006, a majority in the House of Commons passed the Veterans’ First Motion which called for a stop to the “unfair deductions.”
Why has nothing been done? One can only imagine that the bureaucrats standing in the way have little idea of what it means to serve in the military. Unlike the 9-to-5 public servant, the military member effectively signs a contract with Canada for what our military calls “unlimited liability.” Not surprisingly, the bureaucrats have ensured that Canada has a very limited liability in caring for disabled soldiers.
These same senior bureaucrats receive their disability plan free, paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Interestingly, their plan is not allowed to deduct pain and suffering payments.
Neither the military nor the veterans have a union to protect them.
In court, the judge received an affidavit from the president of SISIP, André Bouchard, who served in the military for “almost 30 years.” Bouchard claims that should the plan stop deducting pain and suffering payments, the result would be “exorbitant premiums which would impose significant hardship on the members of the Canadian Forces.”
How “exorbitant” is this hardship? Currently, a corporal in the military pays approximately $9.40 per month for the long-term disability policy. Bouchard predicts that premiums would increase by 40 per cent or $3.76/month, the price of a café latte.
Bouchard makes further excuses to continue the ‘unfair deductions’ because a disabled soldier “could effectively receive more than 100 per cent of his or her former income.” This statement is patently untrue. The “former income” included pain and suffering payments plus 100 per cent of their salary. The long-term disability pays only 75 per cent of the former salary.
Furthermore, for many of these disabled soldiers, they were forced out of the military when there was a pay freeze. The same corporal would be earning approximately 50 per cent more today than 10 years ago whereas SISIP has only increased approximately 20 per cent. (SISIP allows for an annual inflationary increase of a maximum of two per cent vs. the public service plan at three per cent).
A senior federal public servant on rehabilitation can earn up to 100 per cent of their former income and still collect their Veterans Affairs payments had the servant been previously injured in the military.
Why the double standard?
Such obvious discrimination led the previous DND Ombudsman Yves Coté to state “the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation, as well as the protection of the equality provisions set out in Sec. 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination.”
We have all seen the signs of a disposable society but this has been possible because replacements are cheap and the long-term costs are not included. The same holds true for soldiers. We have too long disposed of those when they are obsolete once wounded psychologically or physically.
Canada must renew the broken trust with these forgotten 4,260 soldiers by giving back the money that has been wrongfully taken from them. Only then will the soldiers consider trusting the very society for which the soldiers have sacrificed so much.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/02/disposable-soldiers-canada-must-renew-broken-trust-with-its-forgotten-4260-soldiers/
Guest- Guest
Cheating our veterans
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:49
By Sean Bruyea-THE NATIONAL POST-February 14, 2008.
This Valentine’s Day, thousands of cards and good wishes will be sent to soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan. But back home, a very different sentiment is being shown to more than 4,200 injured soldiers. While Canadians honour and thank our soldiers serving abroad, many disabled military members are forgotten once their uniforms come off.
Since October, 2000, Canadian law stipulates that a wounded soldier can collect his full salary as well as pain and suffering payments. If a soldier is so wounded as to be unemployable, he must be forced out of the military and paid a salary reduced to 75% of his previous income — with pain-and-suffering payments deducted from the new, lower income. The injustice of this deduction policy attracted the attention of the standing committee on national defence and veterans affairs in 2003, which passed a motion imploring the minister of national defence to stop the deductions. Ironically, the current minister of national defence, Peter MacKay, as well as the current prime minister, president of the treasury board and minister of veterans affairs were all associate members of that committee when the motion was passed.
And yet nothing has been done to right this wrong. The reason is simple: The bureaucrats standing in the way of a just policy have little idea what it means to serve in the military. Ironically, these same senior bureaucrats receive free disability plans, paid for by Canadian taxpayers — and their plan does not deduct pain and suffering payments.
Since Tuesday, a Halifax courtroom has been hearing a request to certify a class-action lawsuit that would force the federal government to stop deducting pain-and-suffering payments from disabled soldiers’ long-term disability plans. The judge has read an affidavit from Andre Bouchard, the president of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), the disability plan mandatory for all Canadian forces personnel. Mr. Bouchard, who in fact served in the military for almost 30 years, claims that should the SISIP plan stop deducting pain and suffering payments, the result would be “exorbitant premiums which would impose significant hardship on the members of the Canadian Forces.”
But how much more expensive would the higher premiums actually be? Currently, a corporal in the military pays approximately $9.40 per month for the long-term disability policy. Mr. Bouchard predicts that premiums would increase by 40%, or just $3.76 per month– the price of a latte.
Mr. Bouchard makes further excuses, claiming that disabled soldiers “could effectively receive more than 100% of their former income” were the policy to be changed. But a senior federal public servant on rehabilitation can earn up to 100% of his former income – - and still collect veterans affairs payments if previously injured in the military. Why the double standard?
Such obvious discrimination led the previous department of national defence ombudsman Yves Cote to state “the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation, as well as the protection of the equality provisions set out in section 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination.”
Canada must renew the broken trust with our forgotten soldiers and give them back the money that has been wrongfully taken from them. Only then will the soldiers consider trusting the very society for which they have sacrificed so much.
seankis@rogers.com – Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
Credit: National Post
Copyright National Post Company Feb 14, 2008
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/02/581/
This Valentine’s Day, thousands of cards and good wishes will be sent to soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan. But back home, a very different sentiment is being shown to more than 4,200 injured soldiers. While Canadians honour and thank our soldiers serving abroad, many disabled military members are forgotten once their uniforms come off.
Since October, 2000, Canadian law stipulates that a wounded soldier can collect his full salary as well as pain and suffering payments. If a soldier is so wounded as to be unemployable, he must be forced out of the military and paid a salary reduced to 75% of his previous income — with pain-and-suffering payments deducted from the new, lower income. The injustice of this deduction policy attracted the attention of the standing committee on national defence and veterans affairs in 2003, which passed a motion imploring the minister of national defence to stop the deductions. Ironically, the current minister of national defence, Peter MacKay, as well as the current prime minister, president of the treasury board and minister of veterans affairs were all associate members of that committee when the motion was passed.
And yet nothing has been done to right this wrong. The reason is simple: The bureaucrats standing in the way of a just policy have little idea what it means to serve in the military. Ironically, these same senior bureaucrats receive free disability plans, paid for by Canadian taxpayers — and their plan does not deduct pain and suffering payments.
Since Tuesday, a Halifax courtroom has been hearing a request to certify a class-action lawsuit that would force the federal government to stop deducting pain-and-suffering payments from disabled soldiers’ long-term disability plans. The judge has read an affidavit from Andre Bouchard, the president of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), the disability plan mandatory for all Canadian forces personnel. Mr. Bouchard, who in fact served in the military for almost 30 years, claims that should the SISIP plan stop deducting pain and suffering payments, the result would be “exorbitant premiums which would impose significant hardship on the members of the Canadian Forces.”
But how much more expensive would the higher premiums actually be? Currently, a corporal in the military pays approximately $9.40 per month for the long-term disability policy. Mr. Bouchard predicts that premiums would increase by 40%, or just $3.76 per month– the price of a latte.
Mr. Bouchard makes further excuses, claiming that disabled soldiers “could effectively receive more than 100% of their former income” were the policy to be changed. But a senior federal public servant on rehabilitation can earn up to 100% of his former income – - and still collect veterans affairs payments if previously injured in the military. Why the double standard?
Such obvious discrimination led the previous department of national defence ombudsman Yves Cote to state “the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation, as well as the protection of the equality provisions set out in section 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination.”
Canada must renew the broken trust with our forgotten soldiers and give them back the money that has been wrongfully taken from them. Only then will the soldiers consider trusting the very society for which they have sacrificed so much.
seankis@rogers.com – Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
Credit: National Post
Copyright National Post Company Feb 14, 2008
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/02/581/
Guest- Guest
Veterans Affairs Minister Thompson should be building trust and showing more compassion
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:47
If Veterans Affairs is being operated so well, why was there a need to create a veterans ombudsman office to address all the problems which don´t exist?
By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-Published February 4, 2008
When a Cabinet minister takes a public shot at any Canadian citizen, Canadians take notice. In this case, the minister of Veterans Affairs took aim at two Canadian veterans, (“Obvious facts missing from story, says Veterans Affairs Minister Thompson,“ The Hill Times, Jan 28, p.10). As one of two persons targeted in that personal attack, I went through a period of not-so-calm reflection after settling upon the sincere wish to thank the minister for reading our article. Did we get our facts wrong? Did we miss “obvious” facts?
The first is easier to answer, the latter is highly subjective. A better question would be: did we stand up for those who are least able to stand up for themselves: the dead, the dying, the wounded soldiers, and the families who care for them?
The minister used the term “overhead” in addressing the costs to deliver services to the injured soldiers and their families. It appears that the minister has taken a more narrow definition of “overhead” which does not include costs of labour and materials.
However, in our previous article (“Veterans Affairs: well-oiled machine or department in crisis?” The Hill Times, Jan 21, p. 34) we explained our use of the term to include all operating expenses as the total cost of delivering treatment and services to the disabled soldiers and their families. In that sense, we were consistent with the “Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) 2006-2007 Performance Report,” signed by the minister on pages one and six and yet again twice by the deputy minister.
The report states that “total operating expenses” for VAC were $916-million out of total expenditures of $3.037-billion. VAC shows similar percentages for at least the prior two years. That means that the department spends more than 30 cents to administer every dollar which is almost 15 times the 2.1 cent cost incurred by OHIP in managing each of Ontario´s healthcare dollars.
What is even more interesting is that employees´ salaries were $292-million for the entire department yet according to the same report “treatment expenditures for 2006-07 were $266.1-million.” Since ´operating expenditures´ for the healthcare (treatment) side of the department were $723-million, only 30 cents of every dollar makes it to the veterans care and 70 cents is absorbed by the Department´s operating expenses.
There are bigger questions here than debating the definition of ´overhead´ or throwing about rhetoric. The truth is that Canadians know that there is something ´wrong´ at Veterans Affairs. We know that there is too much red tape. We know the department is top-heavy and inefficient. We know that the front line staff and many of the more junior positions in Charlottetown, P.E.I., are overworked. We know that too many disabled veterans and their struggling families fall through the cracks.
That is why all parties endorsed the creation of a veterans ombudsman. The committee report, A Helping Hand for Veterans: Mandate for a Veterans Ombudsman, called for a legislated and truly independent ombudsman with real powers of investigation. Sadly, the process to create the veterans ombudsman has abandoned any of the substantive recommendations contained in the committee´s report.
Nevertheless, the question must be asked, if Veterans Affairs is being operated so well, then why was there a need to create an office to address all the problems which don´t exist?
The minister is likely correct in saying that spending on veterans has increased by $523-million or will have by the end of 2007-08. Approximately $400-million of that increase was legislated before the Minister took office. Half of that or $200 million was due to legislated increases in the monthly disability award of 7.1 per cent in 2006, 2.3 per cent in 2007 and 2.0 per cent in 2008. This may seem like a sweet deal for the disabled veterans until one realizes that the monthly award is calculated to mirror the greater of inflation or the after tax income of “unskilled members of the federal public administration.”
The remaining $200-million will have been paid out in one-time lump sum payments which replace the lifelong monthly disability payments for soldiers injured after April 1, 2006. Is such as golden handshake treating “our courageous men and women…with respect and dignity”?
I want to thank the minister for another thing. When a veteran asks for help or publicly identifies a problem, Veterans Affairs should make it personal. The care of disabled soldiers and their families should always be personal, except that this personal care should be characterized by compassion and respect and not defensive lashing out.
The bottom line is that the minister and the entire department exist for and because of veterans and their families. Even if one disabled veteran or their family says there is something wrong, then Veterans Affairs needs to listen and say, “How can we fix the problem? How can we help?” Perhaps then, dialogue can begin, trust can be rebuilt and services can be improved while directly including the very clients Veterans Affairs is legislated to serve.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/02/veterans-affairs-minister-thompson-should-be-building-trust-and-showing-more-compassion/
By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-Published February 4, 2008
When a Cabinet minister takes a public shot at any Canadian citizen, Canadians take notice. In this case, the minister of Veterans Affairs took aim at two Canadian veterans, (“Obvious facts missing from story, says Veterans Affairs Minister Thompson,“ The Hill Times, Jan 28, p.10). As one of two persons targeted in that personal attack, I went through a period of not-so-calm reflection after settling upon the sincere wish to thank the minister for reading our article. Did we get our facts wrong? Did we miss “obvious” facts?
The first is easier to answer, the latter is highly subjective. A better question would be: did we stand up for those who are least able to stand up for themselves: the dead, the dying, the wounded soldiers, and the families who care for them?
The minister used the term “overhead” in addressing the costs to deliver services to the injured soldiers and their families. It appears that the minister has taken a more narrow definition of “overhead” which does not include costs of labour and materials.
However, in our previous article (“Veterans Affairs: well-oiled machine or department in crisis?” The Hill Times, Jan 21, p. 34) we explained our use of the term to include all operating expenses as the total cost of delivering treatment and services to the disabled soldiers and their families. In that sense, we were consistent with the “Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) 2006-2007 Performance Report,” signed by the minister on pages one and six and yet again twice by the deputy minister.
The report states that “total operating expenses” for VAC were $916-million out of total expenditures of $3.037-billion. VAC shows similar percentages for at least the prior two years. That means that the department spends more than 30 cents to administer every dollar which is almost 15 times the 2.1 cent cost incurred by OHIP in managing each of Ontario´s healthcare dollars.
What is even more interesting is that employees´ salaries were $292-million for the entire department yet according to the same report “treatment expenditures for 2006-07 were $266.1-million.” Since ´operating expenditures´ for the healthcare (treatment) side of the department were $723-million, only 30 cents of every dollar makes it to the veterans care and 70 cents is absorbed by the Department´s operating expenses.
There are bigger questions here than debating the definition of ´overhead´ or throwing about rhetoric. The truth is that Canadians know that there is something ´wrong´ at Veterans Affairs. We know that there is too much red tape. We know the department is top-heavy and inefficient. We know that the front line staff and many of the more junior positions in Charlottetown, P.E.I., are overworked. We know that too many disabled veterans and their struggling families fall through the cracks.
That is why all parties endorsed the creation of a veterans ombudsman. The committee report, A Helping Hand for Veterans: Mandate for a Veterans Ombudsman, called for a legislated and truly independent ombudsman with real powers of investigation. Sadly, the process to create the veterans ombudsman has abandoned any of the substantive recommendations contained in the committee´s report.
Nevertheless, the question must be asked, if Veterans Affairs is being operated so well, then why was there a need to create an office to address all the problems which don´t exist?
The minister is likely correct in saying that spending on veterans has increased by $523-million or will have by the end of 2007-08. Approximately $400-million of that increase was legislated before the Minister took office. Half of that or $200 million was due to legislated increases in the monthly disability award of 7.1 per cent in 2006, 2.3 per cent in 2007 and 2.0 per cent in 2008. This may seem like a sweet deal for the disabled veterans until one realizes that the monthly award is calculated to mirror the greater of inflation or the after tax income of “unskilled members of the federal public administration.”
The remaining $200-million will have been paid out in one-time lump sum payments which replace the lifelong monthly disability payments for soldiers injured after April 1, 2006. Is such as golden handshake treating “our courageous men and women…with respect and dignity”?
I want to thank the minister for another thing. When a veteran asks for help or publicly identifies a problem, Veterans Affairs should make it personal. The care of disabled soldiers and their families should always be personal, except that this personal care should be characterized by compassion and respect and not defensive lashing out.
The bottom line is that the minister and the entire department exist for and because of veterans and their families. Even if one disabled veteran or their family says there is something wrong, then Veterans Affairs needs to listen and say, “How can we fix the problem? How can we help?” Perhaps then, dialogue can begin, trust can be rebuilt and services can be improved while directly including the very clients Veterans Affairs is legislated to serve.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/02/veterans-affairs-minister-thompson-should-be-building-trust-and-showing-more-compassion/
Guest- Guest
Veterans Affairs Canada: Well-Oiled Machine or Department in Crisis?
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:43
by Sean Bruyea and Robert Smol-THE HILL TIMES-January 21, 2008
Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) has a lot on its plate: an unexpectedly large number of wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan, 2,000 or more World War 2 veterans passing away each month, the appointment of the first-ever ombudsman and introducing the single largest change in veterans benefits in 60 years. While the department paints a rosy picture of effectiveness and client satisfaction, many observers and veterans point to a department in crisis, with top-heavy over centralization, insensitivity to clients and overworked frontline staff.
“The bureaucrats are afraid to pop their head out into the real world for fear of becoming a ‘whak-a-mole’ and getting hit on the head” said retied Sergeant Ron Cundell a physically disabled veteran living near Barrie, Ont. “They don’t look beyond the tables that are in front of them. They have no proper medical training so how can they truly understand a medical report.”
Veterans Affairs is the only government department with its head office located outside Ottawa. Not counting their only hospital, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Veterans Affairs has just over 2,700 full time equivalents working in veterans programs, benefits and healthcare. More than 66 per cent of those positions are located in various headquarters, leaving only 33 per cent of the workforce or less than 900 personnel to care for the 220,000 clients of Veterans Affairs.
The labyrinthine bureaucracy did not escape the eye of the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs last month. Liberal Senator Colin Kenny (Rideau, Ont.) commented to the current Deputy Minister Suzanne Tining that the departmental organization chart reminded him “of the organization chart of Homeland Security in the United States” subsequently qualifying his reference with “I was not being complimentary.”
“You are thrown into miles and miles of red tape” said Cundell “What sort of quality of life is that? That consumed me for the first three years of my illness-having to go through all the levels of Veteran Affairs then go to the Supreme Court of Canada for a federal court judge to say in one day ‘he deserves his pension, give it to him”
Only 10 years ago it was the Canadian Forces which found itself being criticized for many of the same reasons Veterans Affairs Canada is now under the gun. However, National Defence has since undergone a ‘revolution’ of sorts. The path to many welcome changes in the CF started in large part as a result of Parliamentary hearings wrapped-up in 1998 by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. These hearings toured the country’s bases taking input directly from soldiers and their families.
“DND seems to be doing a lot of introspective analysis” said retired army intelligence officer Captain Perry Gray a disabled veteran suffering from PTSD . “But on the other end there doesn’t seem to be anything done by VAC. When a person leaves DND there isn’t the same level of treatment provided by Veterans Affairs-I think it’s worse.”
It is a point that is disputed by Ken Miller, director of program policy for Veterans Affairs who claims that under the New Veterans Charter passed in April 2006 disabled veterans will encounter a “seamless transition.”
“The New Veterans Charter created an access point right at the time of release where there is interaction between the veteran and us, and between us and National Defence to ensure that there is continuity as the veteran transitions from life in the military and support of their disability during the last period of time that they were in the military to support under Veterans Affairs” he said. “It is not an entitlement eligibility type of system it is a needs-based system; that is really what is quite critical now.”
If current trends continue, Veterans Affairs will be confronted with a growing queue of younger disabled vets, seeking assistance especially in the area of psychological injuries such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
In its 2006-07 performance report submitted to the Treasury Board, Veterans Affairs states that “over the past five years the number of clients with PTSD has more than tripled, increasing to 6,504″.
Janice Summerby of Veterans Affairs explains , “there are currently a total of 10,882 Veterans receiving disability benefits for psychological conditions, including PTSD.”
Yet Veterans Affairs’ only hospital, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in Montreal provides mostly geriatric care to aging veterans. There are five clinics across Canada which offer limited outpatient care for psychological injuries such as PTSD. One of those clinics is located at Sainte-Anne’s.
In spite of the growing numbers of Canadian Forces veterans suffering from PTSD, Sainte-Anne’s hospital provides only four beds to treat psychological injuries of military service.
“I was basically shocked by the whole thing” said Gray who was once temporarily admitted to Sainte-Anne’s but was subsequently discharged against his wishes and under heavy medication. “It was a case of take two aspirins and call me in the morning.”
Added to this is the additional stress and frustration that a soldier suffering from PTSD has to go through attempting to jump through the bureaucratic hoops in order to receive assistance.
“Some of the forms they have to fill out, especially those going through PTSD, that in itself can give you PTSD” says NDP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore, N.S.), his party’s veterans affairs critic. “The Minister should have honoured what he said he was going to do in the first place which is that the benefit of the doubt will always fall upon the veteran. There must be a tremendous amount of people who just said I give up.”
South of the border the United States Department of Veterans Affairs has more than 150 hospitals, almost 900 clinics and more than 200 veteran support centres dedicated to the care of veterans. Each of these facilities offers mental health care and all veterans’ hospitals have dedicated beds for veterans suffering psychological injuries.
In Canada a primary concern remains the management of the limited funds dedicated to veterans’ care. It was during last month’s hearing that Senator Kenny challenged Deputy Minister Tining, “if you could eliminate various positions and hearings, the business case might even turn out that you would save money and in fact increase benefits.”
While the Deputy Minister testified she “could not agree more” with Sen. Kenny, Ms. Tining declined to answer the question regarding “overhead versus payout.” The Associate Deputy Minister Verna Bruce responded that it was “about $250 million.”
The Department’s annual report signed by Ms. Tining tells a different story. Veterans Affairs spends 30 cents of every dollar or $1 billion of its $3 billion budget on funding “overhead”. But on the healthcare side, the inefficiency is even more pronounced with 71 cents of every dollar covering overhead and only 29 cents making it to the veteran’s care. Of more than $1 billion budgeted to the healthcare division, only $266 million is paid out for veterans’ treatment.
By contrast, the US Department of Veterans Affairs spends only 10 cents of every dollar on operating costs with approximately 90 cents going directly to the veteran in the form of benefits or medical care. The U.S. has 100 times more employees in their healthcare division than Canada but its budget at $37 billion is only 37 times as large as the healthcare budget of Veterans Affairs Canada.
Comparison with the oft-criticized Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP) paints a picture at Veterans Affairs of a productivity-challenged organization. OHIP is projected to spend approximately $280 million to administer $12.9 billion in payments for healthcare this year. This equates to an operating cost of 2.1 cents for every dollar paid out for the healthcare of Ontario’s residents.
Veterans Affairs spends $2.70 cents to manage every dollar that it pays out for healthcare, almost 130 times more than the 2.1 cent cost incurred by OHIP to manage each of Ontario’s healthcare dollars.
“I’m disgusted by it all,” said Gray. “If the Department truly cared about its clientele, it would spend more time and effort on providing services and benefits rather than publicizing the results of their stilted client surveys.”
On the front lines the area counsellors who deal directly with veterans on health care issues, have a reported case load of 1,200 or more clients, reportedly limiting them to contact clients only once every three years. Furthermore, VAC workers especially those in the front line have been quickly trying to add the details of the benefits under the New Veterans Charter to a repertoire of programs and benefits developed over the past sixty years.
“It is pure insanity; they are pulling their hair out” said Cundell who also sits on a panel advising the office which serves Toronto and the surrounding area. “We need more Indians not more chiefs. It’s time to change the culture in Veterans Affairs.”
Mr. Miller, though, is quick to point out that number of cases that a counsellor handles should not on its own be taken as an indication of the amount of work or the actual time they may have to deal with the needs of their clients.
“It is not really a case management number, it is the number of clients in a particular area recognizing that not all necessarily need to be case managed, and not all are case managed at the same level of intensity” he said.
Veterans Affairs has yet to face the anticipated wave of wounded military to be covered by the New Veterans Charter. The Canadian Forces have made a concerted effort to retain even severely wounded soldiers from the Afghan conflict protecting them from what they might encounter should they be released.
“I am aware that DND and the Chief of the Defence Staff have made a commitment to not release currently serving members who have been impacted or injured” said Ms. Tining to the Senate subcommittee meeting. “As a result, we have not yet seen as clients any who have been released from the Afghanistan conflict.”
“In terms of providing services, they are really not doing enough for the modern veteran,” emphasizes Chief Editor of ‘veteranvoice.info’, Capt. Gray. He does not hold much hope for the wounded returning from Afghanistan when they are passed off to Veterans Affairs, “Nothing in my personal experience has shown me that [Veterans Affairs] is going to provide the level and quality of service required to ensure the necessary quality of life…[Veterans Affairs] is part of the problem, not part of the solution.”
Sean Bruyea is a retired Captain and disabled soldier who served as an Intelligence Officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.Robert Smol served for 20 years in the Canadian Forces. He is currently a teacher and freelance journalist in Toronto.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/01/veterans-affairs-canada-well-oiled-machine-or-department-in-crisis/
Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) has a lot on its plate: an unexpectedly large number of wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan, 2,000 or more World War 2 veterans passing away each month, the appointment of the first-ever ombudsman and introducing the single largest change in veterans benefits in 60 years. While the department paints a rosy picture of effectiveness and client satisfaction, many observers and veterans point to a department in crisis, with top-heavy over centralization, insensitivity to clients and overworked frontline staff.
“The bureaucrats are afraid to pop their head out into the real world for fear of becoming a ‘whak-a-mole’ and getting hit on the head” said retied Sergeant Ron Cundell a physically disabled veteran living near Barrie, Ont. “They don’t look beyond the tables that are in front of them. They have no proper medical training so how can they truly understand a medical report.”
Veterans Affairs is the only government department with its head office located outside Ottawa. Not counting their only hospital, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Veterans Affairs has just over 2,700 full time equivalents working in veterans programs, benefits and healthcare. More than 66 per cent of those positions are located in various headquarters, leaving only 33 per cent of the workforce or less than 900 personnel to care for the 220,000 clients of Veterans Affairs.
The labyrinthine bureaucracy did not escape the eye of the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs last month. Liberal Senator Colin Kenny (Rideau, Ont.) commented to the current Deputy Minister Suzanne Tining that the departmental organization chart reminded him “of the organization chart of Homeland Security in the United States” subsequently qualifying his reference with “I was not being complimentary.”
“You are thrown into miles and miles of red tape” said Cundell “What sort of quality of life is that? That consumed me for the first three years of my illness-having to go through all the levels of Veteran Affairs then go to the Supreme Court of Canada for a federal court judge to say in one day ‘he deserves his pension, give it to him”
Only 10 years ago it was the Canadian Forces which found itself being criticized for many of the same reasons Veterans Affairs Canada is now under the gun. However, National Defence has since undergone a ‘revolution’ of sorts. The path to many welcome changes in the CF started in large part as a result of Parliamentary hearings wrapped-up in 1998 by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. These hearings toured the country’s bases taking input directly from soldiers and their families.
“DND seems to be doing a lot of introspective analysis” said retired army intelligence officer Captain Perry Gray a disabled veteran suffering from PTSD . “But on the other end there doesn’t seem to be anything done by VAC. When a person leaves DND there isn’t the same level of treatment provided by Veterans Affairs-I think it’s worse.”
It is a point that is disputed by Ken Miller, director of program policy for Veterans Affairs who claims that under the New Veterans Charter passed in April 2006 disabled veterans will encounter a “seamless transition.”
“The New Veterans Charter created an access point right at the time of release where there is interaction between the veteran and us, and between us and National Defence to ensure that there is continuity as the veteran transitions from life in the military and support of their disability during the last period of time that they were in the military to support under Veterans Affairs” he said. “It is not an entitlement eligibility type of system it is a needs-based system; that is really what is quite critical now.”
If current trends continue, Veterans Affairs will be confronted with a growing queue of younger disabled vets, seeking assistance especially in the area of psychological injuries such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
In its 2006-07 performance report submitted to the Treasury Board, Veterans Affairs states that “over the past five years the number of clients with PTSD has more than tripled, increasing to 6,504″.
Janice Summerby of Veterans Affairs explains , “there are currently a total of 10,882 Veterans receiving disability benefits for psychological conditions, including PTSD.”
Yet Veterans Affairs’ only hospital, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue in Montreal provides mostly geriatric care to aging veterans. There are five clinics across Canada which offer limited outpatient care for psychological injuries such as PTSD. One of those clinics is located at Sainte-Anne’s.
In spite of the growing numbers of Canadian Forces veterans suffering from PTSD, Sainte-Anne’s hospital provides only four beds to treat psychological injuries of military service.
“I was basically shocked by the whole thing” said Gray who was once temporarily admitted to Sainte-Anne’s but was subsequently discharged against his wishes and under heavy medication. “It was a case of take two aspirins and call me in the morning.”
Added to this is the additional stress and frustration that a soldier suffering from PTSD has to go through attempting to jump through the bureaucratic hoops in order to receive assistance.
“Some of the forms they have to fill out, especially those going through PTSD, that in itself can give you PTSD” says NDP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore, N.S.), his party’s veterans affairs critic. “The Minister should have honoured what he said he was going to do in the first place which is that the benefit of the doubt will always fall upon the veteran. There must be a tremendous amount of people who just said I give up.”
South of the border the United States Department of Veterans Affairs has more than 150 hospitals, almost 900 clinics and more than 200 veteran support centres dedicated to the care of veterans. Each of these facilities offers mental health care and all veterans’ hospitals have dedicated beds for veterans suffering psychological injuries.
In Canada a primary concern remains the management of the limited funds dedicated to veterans’ care. It was during last month’s hearing that Senator Kenny challenged Deputy Minister Tining, “if you could eliminate various positions and hearings, the business case might even turn out that you would save money and in fact increase benefits.”
While the Deputy Minister testified she “could not agree more” with Sen. Kenny, Ms. Tining declined to answer the question regarding “overhead versus payout.” The Associate Deputy Minister Verna Bruce responded that it was “about $250 million.”
The Department’s annual report signed by Ms. Tining tells a different story. Veterans Affairs spends 30 cents of every dollar or $1 billion of its $3 billion budget on funding “overhead”. But on the healthcare side, the inefficiency is even more pronounced with 71 cents of every dollar covering overhead and only 29 cents making it to the veteran’s care. Of more than $1 billion budgeted to the healthcare division, only $266 million is paid out for veterans’ treatment.
By contrast, the US Department of Veterans Affairs spends only 10 cents of every dollar on operating costs with approximately 90 cents going directly to the veteran in the form of benefits or medical care. The U.S. has 100 times more employees in their healthcare division than Canada but its budget at $37 billion is only 37 times as large as the healthcare budget of Veterans Affairs Canada.
Comparison with the oft-criticized Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP) paints a picture at Veterans Affairs of a productivity-challenged organization. OHIP is projected to spend approximately $280 million to administer $12.9 billion in payments for healthcare this year. This equates to an operating cost of 2.1 cents for every dollar paid out for the healthcare of Ontario’s residents.
Veterans Affairs spends $2.70 cents to manage every dollar that it pays out for healthcare, almost 130 times more than the 2.1 cent cost incurred by OHIP to manage each of Ontario’s healthcare dollars.
“I’m disgusted by it all,” said Gray. “If the Department truly cared about its clientele, it would spend more time and effort on providing services and benefits rather than publicizing the results of their stilted client surveys.”
On the front lines the area counsellors who deal directly with veterans on health care issues, have a reported case load of 1,200 or more clients, reportedly limiting them to contact clients only once every three years. Furthermore, VAC workers especially those in the front line have been quickly trying to add the details of the benefits under the New Veterans Charter to a repertoire of programs and benefits developed over the past sixty years.
“It is pure insanity; they are pulling their hair out” said Cundell who also sits on a panel advising the office which serves Toronto and the surrounding area. “We need more Indians not more chiefs. It’s time to change the culture in Veterans Affairs.”
Mr. Miller, though, is quick to point out that number of cases that a counsellor handles should not on its own be taken as an indication of the amount of work or the actual time they may have to deal with the needs of their clients.
“It is not really a case management number, it is the number of clients in a particular area recognizing that not all necessarily need to be case managed, and not all are case managed at the same level of intensity” he said.
Veterans Affairs has yet to face the anticipated wave of wounded military to be covered by the New Veterans Charter. The Canadian Forces have made a concerted effort to retain even severely wounded soldiers from the Afghan conflict protecting them from what they might encounter should they be released.
“I am aware that DND and the Chief of the Defence Staff have made a commitment to not release currently serving members who have been impacted or injured” said Ms. Tining to the Senate subcommittee meeting. “As a result, we have not yet seen as clients any who have been released from the Afghanistan conflict.”
“In terms of providing services, they are really not doing enough for the modern veteran,” emphasizes Chief Editor of ‘veteranvoice.info’, Capt. Gray. He does not hold much hope for the wounded returning from Afghanistan when they are passed off to Veterans Affairs, “Nothing in my personal experience has shown me that [Veterans Affairs] is going to provide the level and quality of service required to ensure the necessary quality of life…[Veterans Affairs] is part of the problem, not part of the solution.”
Sean Bruyea is a retired Captain and disabled soldier who served as an Intelligence Officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now an advocate for other disabled veterans.Robert Smol served for 20 years in the Canadian Forces. He is currently a teacher and freelance journalist in Toronto.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2008/01/veterans-affairs-canada-well-oiled-machine-or-department-in-crisis/
Guest- Guest
A Remembrance Day to remember, or, a way forward for Canada’s first-ever veterans’ ombudsman
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:40
By Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES-November 5, 2007
OTTAWA–Remembrance Day 2007 will be unlike any other. On Nov. 11, 2007 Canadian veterans, CF soldiers and their families will finally receive their first officially appointed Ombudsman for Veterans Affairs Canada.
Eight years after André Marin became the first DND/CF Ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran will have a no less difficult time trail-blazing through what has become known as an arcane and entrenched bureaucracy. Veterans Affairs Canada is responsible in whole or in part for more than 50 pieces of legislation and regulations for veterans and serving a CF population of more than 900,000. When families, including widows, are added in, the number of potential clients of the Ombudsman’s Office reaches into the stratosphere of millions of Canadians.
Fortunately for the ombudsman, not all veterans and their families are clients of Veterans Affairs. Although there are over 220,000 veteran and family clients receiving benefits, the department has been quick to point out that more than 85 per cent are satisfied with their service from Veterans Affairs Canada. That should be comforting for Stogran when only 30,000 unsatisfied clients start calling his office with a complaint.
Veterans should not be too anxious to have their problems addressed anytime soon. The Ombudsman’s Office has but an interim skeleton staff right now. The new ombudsman will likely require more than eight months or more into the New Year to hire, train, and coordinate his staff to take on the first serious investigations. This should give much required breathing time for the senior bureaucrats at Veterans Affairs to avoid dealing with the long laundry list of issues in need of immediate repair.
The creation of the ombudsman has powerful allies, especially in the first-ever standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was created in large part for such initiatives as the ombudsman. However, like its work on the Bill of Rights, the committee’s excellent and unanimous report has been all but ignored. Sadly, the process to create the veterans’ ombudsman has abandoned any of the 22 substantive recommendations from 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 have legislated ombudsman offices (except Prince Edward Island) with these important investigative powers.
Whether a soldier has served in World War II, Korea, Kuwait, Afghanistan or Cold Lake Alberta, upon release from the Forces, the soldier is called a veteran. The ombudsman will likely be asked why veterans’ benefits are being designed to create three separate classes of veterans, each with sub-classes. War veterans from World War II and Korea receive entirely different benefits than veterans of Bosnia, Rwanda, and the Gulf War who receive yet again different benefits than veterans after April 1, 2006, when the lifelong disability payments were replaced with a lump sum payment under the New Veterans Charter.
No doubt a high priority for the ombudsman will be the outstanding decisions affecting World War II veterans who are tragically dying at the rate of 2,500 per month. The ombudsman will be frustrated watching Canada’s bravest pass on without receiving just compensation. His office will not be allowed to visit cases of individual veterans if “there is a right of review or appeal to the [Veterans Review and Appeal] Board.” Unfortunately, the inhumanity of making any injured soldiers let alone aging veterans go through years of reviews and appeals when the injustice is glaringly obvious will be a poignant shortfall in the ombudsman’s powers.
It is dealing with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board [VRAB] and the Bureau of Pension Advocate lawyers that serve the veterans that the ombudsman will be most disappointed. The bureaucratically controlled process to create the ombudsman’s mandate ensured that the ombudsman cannot interfere with “any decision of the board” nor can the office confront the sometimes questionable “legal advice provided by the Bureau of Pension Advocates.” André Marin, the first CF ombudsman and now the Ontario ombudsman, testified publicly regarding a veterans’ ombudsman stepping in to look at a file before the board, “There is nothing in our common law that would prevent that kind of intervention.”
Ironically, it was because of the real and perceived injustices in the board and the lawyers which spearheaded the calls for creating a veterans ombudsman.
Hopefully the new veterans ombudsman will actively pursue joint reports with the DND ombudsman on such outstanding scandals as the unfair deductions of Veterans’ Affairs pain and suffering payments from the Canadian Forces Long Term Disability policy (which remain unresolved). At the same time, soldiers are often lost in the hand-off between the responsive, reactive, and reinforcing culture of the military to the often defensive denial and dismissive delays which characterize the administration of disability benefits in Veterans Affairs. Coordination of the two offices in thoroughly investigating and evaluating joint programs could prevent much pain and suffering.
Undoubtedly, there will be many hands attempting to meddle in the ombudsman’s pie. The order in council requires the ombudsman to have an advisory committee “taking into consideration the need for representation from veterans’ and stakeholders’ groups.” Up until now, Veterans Affairs has thrown a few slim pickings to only six veterans groups in secretive discussions. This situation leaves behind more than 60 groups which the department has ignored along with the more than 600,000 unaffiliated veterans. Meanwhile, the department backed by the leadership of these six organizations championed haphazardly written legislation such as the New Veterans Charter without any meaningful or widespread consultations, let alone public or Parliamentary debate.
Perhaps rotating membership would offer most groups representation over time. Meanwhile, creative methods of reaching out to the unaffiliated majority of veterans/CF members and their families would do much to rebuild the horribly broken trust between the government and especially the disabled soldiers and their families. Furthermore, the use of special investigators contracted on a part time basis similar to the DND Ombudsman’s Office would also help circumvent bureaucratic reflex responses from the department and from certain larger veterans groups such as the national leadership of the Royal Canadian Legion.
The list of systemic problems, unjustly administered programs and failures to fulfill the department’s mandate is indeed exhaustive. However, there are two key areas which the new ombudsman can most effectively make his mark and bring about widespread reform. There needs to be a sea change in the often isolated senior leadership in Veterans Affairs. Too few if any of these senior mandarins truly understand the cohesive military culture and the traumatic effects on individual soldiers when they are shamefully evicted from the CF due to disability.
Secondly, the secretive and evasive management has been highly adept at avoiding any real controversy over the years, especially since the move of the head office to Charlottetown in the early 1980s.The ombudsman can once and for all remove the veil of secrecy which has allowed the department to take a band-aid approach to limited public scandal while the systemic wounds continue to fester, hidden from public view.
In his first public statements upon being appointed ombudsman, Stogran said that he is “not going to hesitate to call a spade a shovel.” These may be prophetic words. Considering he is starting handcuffed by a limited mandate, Canada’s first veterans’ ombudsman will need more than a shovel (or a spade) to clear a path through decades of maladministration and poorly constructed and administered policy at the Department which has frequently allowed tens of thousands of injured soldiers, veterans and their families to fall through the cracks.
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/2007/11/a-remembrance-day-to-remember-or-a-way-forward-for-canadas-first-ever-veterans-ombudsman/
OTTAWA–Remembrance Day 2007 will be unlike any other. On Nov. 11, 2007 Canadian veterans, CF soldiers and their families will finally receive their first officially appointed Ombudsman for Veterans Affairs Canada.
Eight years after André Marin became the first DND/CF Ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran will have a no less difficult time trail-blazing through what has become known as an arcane and entrenched bureaucracy. Veterans Affairs Canada is responsible in whole or in part for more than 50 pieces of legislation and regulations for veterans and serving a CF population of more than 900,000. When families, including widows, are added in, the number of potential clients of the Ombudsman’s Office reaches into the stratosphere of millions of Canadians.
Fortunately for the ombudsman, not all veterans and their families are clients of Veterans Affairs. Although there are over 220,000 veteran and family clients receiving benefits, the department has been quick to point out that more than 85 per cent are satisfied with their service from Veterans Affairs Canada. That should be comforting for Stogran when only 30,000 unsatisfied clients start calling his office with a complaint.
Veterans should not be too anxious to have their problems addressed anytime soon. The Ombudsman’s Office has but an interim skeleton staff right now. The new ombudsman will likely require more than eight months or more into the New Year to hire, train, and coordinate his staff to take on the first serious investigations. This should give much required breathing time for the senior bureaucrats at Veterans Affairs to avoid dealing with the long laundry list of issues in need of immediate repair.
The creation of the ombudsman has powerful allies, especially in the first-ever standing Committee on Veterans Affairs which was created in large part for such initiatives as the ombudsman. However, like its work on the Bill of Rights, the committee’s excellent and unanimous report has been all but ignored. Sadly, the process to create the veterans’ ombudsman has abandoned any of the 22 substantive recommendations from 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 have legislated ombudsman offices (except Prince Edward Island) with these important investigative powers.
Whether a soldier has served in World War II, Korea, Kuwait, Afghanistan or Cold Lake Alberta, upon release from the Forces, the soldier is called a veteran. The ombudsman will likely be asked why veterans’ benefits are being designed to create three separate classes of veterans, each with sub-classes. War veterans from World War II and Korea receive entirely different benefits than veterans of Bosnia, Rwanda, and the Gulf War who receive yet again different benefits than veterans after April 1, 2006, when the lifelong disability payments were replaced with a lump sum payment under the New Veterans Charter.
No doubt a high priority for the ombudsman will be the outstanding decisions affecting World War II veterans who are tragically dying at the rate of 2,500 per month. The ombudsman will be frustrated watching Canada’s bravest pass on without receiving just compensation. His office will not be allowed to visit cases of individual veterans if “there is a right of review or appeal to the [Veterans Review and Appeal] Board.” Unfortunately, the inhumanity of making any injured soldiers let alone aging veterans go through years of reviews and appeals when the injustice is glaringly obvious will be a poignant shortfall in the ombudsman’s powers.
It is dealing with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board [VRAB] and the Bureau of Pension Advocate lawyers that serve the veterans that the ombudsman will be most disappointed. The bureaucratically controlled process to create the ombudsman’s mandate ensured that the ombudsman cannot interfere with “any decision of the board” nor can the office confront the sometimes questionable “legal advice provided by the Bureau of Pension Advocates.” André Marin, the first CF ombudsman and now the Ontario ombudsman, testified publicly regarding a veterans’ ombudsman stepping in to look at a file before the board, “There is nothing in our common law that would prevent that kind of intervention.”
Ironically, it was because of the real and perceived injustices in the board and the lawyers which spearheaded the calls for creating a veterans ombudsman.
Hopefully the new veterans ombudsman will actively pursue joint reports with the DND ombudsman on such outstanding scandals as the unfair deductions of Veterans’ Affairs pain and suffering payments from the Canadian Forces Long Term Disability policy (which remain unresolved). At the same time, soldiers are often lost in the hand-off between the responsive, reactive, and reinforcing culture of the military to the often defensive denial and dismissive delays which characterize the administration of disability benefits in Veterans Affairs. Coordination of the two offices in thoroughly investigating and evaluating joint programs could prevent much pain and suffering.
Undoubtedly, there will be many hands attempting to meddle in the ombudsman’s pie. The order in council requires the ombudsman to have an advisory committee “taking into consideration the need for representation from veterans’ and stakeholders’ groups.” Up until now, Veterans Affairs has thrown a few slim pickings to only six veterans groups in secretive discussions. This situation leaves behind more than 60 groups which the department has ignored along with the more than 600,000 unaffiliated veterans. Meanwhile, the department backed by the leadership of these six organizations championed haphazardly written legislation such as the New Veterans Charter without any meaningful or widespread consultations, let alone public or Parliamentary debate.
Perhaps rotating membership would offer most groups representation over time. Meanwhile, creative methods of reaching out to the unaffiliated majority of veterans/CF members and their families would do much to rebuild the horribly broken trust between the government and especially the disabled soldiers and their families. Furthermore, the use of special investigators contracted on a part time basis similar to the DND Ombudsman’s Office would also help circumvent bureaucratic reflex responses from the department and from certain larger veterans groups such as the national leadership of the Royal Canadian Legion.
The list of systemic problems, unjustly administered programs and failures to fulfill the department’s mandate is indeed exhaustive. However, there are two key areas which the new ombudsman can most effectively make his mark and bring about widespread reform. There needs to be a sea change in the often isolated senior leadership in Veterans Affairs. Too few if any of these senior mandarins truly understand the cohesive military culture and the traumatic effects on individual soldiers when they are shamefully evicted from the CF due to disability.
Secondly, the secretive and evasive management has been highly adept at avoiding any real controversy over the years, especially since the move of the head office to Charlottetown in the early 1980s.The ombudsman can once and for all remove the veil of secrecy which has allowed the department to take a band-aid approach to limited public scandal while the systemic wounds continue to fester, hidden from public view.
In his first public statements upon being appointed ombudsman, Stogran said that he is “not going to hesitate to call a spade a shovel.” These may be prophetic words. Considering he is starting handcuffed by a limited mandate, Canada’s first veterans’ ombudsman will need more than a shovel (or a spade) to clear a path through decades of maladministration and poorly constructed and administered policy at the Department which has frequently allowed tens of thousands of injured soldiers, veterans and their families to fall through the cracks.
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/2007/11/a-remembrance-day-to-remember-or-a-way-forward-for-canadas-first-ever-veterans-ombudsman/
Guest- Guest
Civil servants and soldiers: some are more equal than others
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:38
Except for the benefit initially calculated at five per cent more than the civil service plans, the Canadian Forces disability plan falls short in several important provisions.
By Robert Smol and Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES- October 8, 2007
There’s one thing a soldier manning a machine gun in Afghanistan and a civil servant manning a desk in Ottawa or Gatineau have in common: neither is likely aware of the details of their long-term disability plan, at least not until tragedy strikes.
But soldiers may be forgiven if they assume that the military’s long-term disability (LTD) plan is on par with the civil service plan. Both civil servants and soldiers have additional benefits for work-related injuries. However, a closer look at the LTD plans of both gives a barometer of sorts as to how the government compensates those in public service, in and out of uniform. Indeed, Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed the belief of the vast majority of Canadians when he stated that “military service is the highest form of public service.”
Enter now the financial reality of risking your life for Canada and the world 24 hours a day. When comparing the military and civilian long-term disability plans one sees that the LTD plans afforded to the civil service are in key areas considerably more generous than those granted to members of the Canadian Forces. This situation appears counterintuitive as it is widely recognized that the personal lives of soldiers on average endure greater strain than that of most civil servants. It is in the personal lives when LTD plans are most relevant.
Should a Member of Parliament or bureaucrat injure themselves falling down the stairs of their basement or cottage receive better long-term disability coverage than a military person disabled in a car accident driving home late from the military base?
“This is a golden parachute that they have compared to our lead parachute,” says retired sergeant Ron Cundell, a disabled Gulf War veteran who lives near Barrie, Ont. “Their whole disability benefits and pension plan is so different from ours. I have had a lot of my friends who are still in the Forces call me and say, ‘We’ve got to educate ourselves.’ ”
There are two plans for employees of the federal civil service: Disability Insurance (DI) for employees covered by collective bargaining, and the Public Service Management Insurance Plan (PSMIP) for those in management not included in collective bargaining. PSMIP also has a sub-category: executives with enhanced benefits. Mandarins in the EX, SX categories as well as deputy ministers, EAs to ministers, Members of Parliament and Senators have their long-term disability paid for 100 per cent by Treasury Board. Senior officers in the CF with the rank of full colonel and above also enjoy this ‘free’ benefit via the Service Income Security Insurance Plan LTD or SISIP.
On the other hand, federal civil servants covered under collective bargaining, pay 15 per cent of the premium. Treasury Board covers the rest. But what is truly unique about the Canadian system is that a member of the military is required to pay out-of- pocket to help cover the costs of their own disability benefits, even if that injury occurs while on duty. Although other Veterans Affairs benefits kick in for duty-related injuries, in the area of income loss, SISIP is the ‘first-payer’ for LTD for which the soldier also pays 15 per cent of their disability insurance premium while Treasury Board pays the difference.
On the receiving end, except for the benefit initially calculated at five per cent more than the civil service plans, the CF disability plan falls short in several important provisions.
To begin with both PSMIP and DI are not allowed to deduct ‘Pension Act’ monthly awards for pain and suffering, but the military’s SISIP plan deducts every dollar of the Veterans Affairs monthly disability award. This serves as an insulting testament to the military service of the more than 4,000 injured soldiers who are collecting or have collected SISIP LTD benefits since October 2000 and are therefore too disabled to work.
“A VAC award is also referred to as a gratuity and, by definition, a gratuity means a, ‘Thank you in appreciation,’ ” says Cundell. “So when Canada and the government thank me for loss of health and quality of life to my face, the bureaucrats are behind me picking my pocket of that gratuity. So to a disabled veteran gratuity has a completely different definition, compliments of the bureaucrats.”
“Something is wrong here, very wrong,” says retired corporal Kevin Landry a disabled veteran who served as a driver during the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia. “We don’t have the right to public assembly or protest in uniform and once we are out we are scattered across the country. If we were a smaller country we would have gotten together to have this problem looked at.”
And in spite of the fact that the current and previous military ombudsmen have called for an end to these deductions, nothing has been done to date. This, in spite of the fact that the ombudsmen’s recommendations were supported by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs not to mention a majority of MPs who last year passed the Veterans First Motion which included the requirement for the government to “eliminate the unfair reduction of SISIP.”
“Back when I was a sergeant, if I made a promise to my subordinates I either carried through with that promise or I told them exactly why I could not follow through–I did not leave them hanging and that is how I kept their respect,” says Cundell.
Another hallmark of the government’s disability caste system is the fact that PSMIP and certain senior military officers also receive life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment and dependent’s insurance, premiums for which are covered 100 percent by Canadian taxpayers. These plans continue to be paid for by the federal government even when the executives must go on long term disability. Canada’s disabled soldiers receive nothing like this.
While annual increases are capped in both plans, the civil service plan nonetheless allows for 50 per cent more annual increases than the Canadian Forces’ plan which is capped at two per cent. Considering that inflation (Consumer Price Index) has been above two per cent in five of the past seven years, the CF plan’s advantage in benefit payout would be eroded in short order.
Furthermore, federal bureaucrats can continue contributing to their retirement pensions while on an LTD rehabilitation program, a provision not granted to our wounded soldiers. For veterans such as Cundell, whose medical condition forced him to retire two months shy of his full 20-year military pension, this limitation serves as an especially difficult pill to swallow.
“You were told from day one sign this paper and we will take care of you if you get sick,” he says. “Well you did not tell me that it was going to be an adversarial program that was going to put the blocks on me every time I turned around.”
Paradoxically, the civil service plan does not deduct CF retirement pension if awarded due to a medical release from the CF but the Forces disability plan deducts this important benefit. For Kevin Landry, fate and government policy denied him any opportunity to collect a military pension.
“I failed my medical and I couldn’t buy back my time,” he says. “I did everything to keep my job and still it wasn’t enough.”
Corporal Landry was medically released with six years regular force service and six years in the reserves. Since he did not have 10 years in the regular force, he did not qualify for a Canadian Forces retirement pension. Federal bureaucrats, however, qualify for a retirement pension after only two years service if disabled.
Although qualification for both plans does not stipulate whether the disability is caused in the workplace or not, there is a dramatic difference in how the two plans are administered. Civil servants can still be employed in their original position on partial work hours and collect LTD. Canadian Forces members must leave the forces first before collecting benefits. There is no provision which allows CF members to return to work on partial hours and still collect LTD.
Finally, Treasury Board will step in and cover deficits accrued by two of the four disability plans they govern (PSMIP, DI, SISIP and RCMP) but this guarantee does not include the plan covering Canada’s soldiers.
It all boils down to compensating risk. The investment world understands this very well: higher risk requires higher reward. The investment Canada’s government has made in our soldiers has this fundamental law backwards. Most Canadians would easily dispute that a desk-bound senior bureaucrat in Ottawa or even a rear echelon general faces more risk than the frontline soldiers in bases across Canada or in Afghanistan.
“We have to go to war even if it is against our will,” says Landry. “There is a huge difference; we are soldiers; but all the while we in the most dangerous jobs get screwed.”
SISIP refused to return our calls to them on this topic.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now and advocate for other disabled veterans. Robert Smol served over 20 years in the Canadian Forces. He is currently a teacher and a freelance journalist in Toronto.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/10/civil-servants-and-soldiers-some-are-more-equal-than-others/
By Robert Smol and Sean Bruyea-THE HILL TIMES- October 8, 2007
There’s one thing a soldier manning a machine gun in Afghanistan and a civil servant manning a desk in Ottawa or Gatineau have in common: neither is likely aware of the details of their long-term disability plan, at least not until tragedy strikes.
But soldiers may be forgiven if they assume that the military’s long-term disability (LTD) plan is on par with the civil service plan. Both civil servants and soldiers have additional benefits for work-related injuries. However, a closer look at the LTD plans of both gives a barometer of sorts as to how the government compensates those in public service, in and out of uniform. Indeed, Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed the belief of the vast majority of Canadians when he stated that “military service is the highest form of public service.”
Enter now the financial reality of risking your life for Canada and the world 24 hours a day. When comparing the military and civilian long-term disability plans one sees that the LTD plans afforded to the civil service are in key areas considerably more generous than those granted to members of the Canadian Forces. This situation appears counterintuitive as it is widely recognized that the personal lives of soldiers on average endure greater strain than that of most civil servants. It is in the personal lives when LTD plans are most relevant.
Should a Member of Parliament or bureaucrat injure themselves falling down the stairs of their basement or cottage receive better long-term disability coverage than a military person disabled in a car accident driving home late from the military base?
“This is a golden parachute that they have compared to our lead parachute,” says retired sergeant Ron Cundell, a disabled Gulf War veteran who lives near Barrie, Ont. “Their whole disability benefits and pension plan is so different from ours. I have had a lot of my friends who are still in the Forces call me and say, ‘We’ve got to educate ourselves.’ ”
There are two plans for employees of the federal civil service: Disability Insurance (DI) for employees covered by collective bargaining, and the Public Service Management Insurance Plan (PSMIP) for those in management not included in collective bargaining. PSMIP also has a sub-category: executives with enhanced benefits. Mandarins in the EX, SX categories as well as deputy ministers, EAs to ministers, Members of Parliament and Senators have their long-term disability paid for 100 per cent by Treasury Board. Senior officers in the CF with the rank of full colonel and above also enjoy this ‘free’ benefit via the Service Income Security Insurance Plan LTD or SISIP.
On the other hand, federal civil servants covered under collective bargaining, pay 15 per cent of the premium. Treasury Board covers the rest. But what is truly unique about the Canadian system is that a member of the military is required to pay out-of- pocket to help cover the costs of their own disability benefits, even if that injury occurs while on duty. Although other Veterans Affairs benefits kick in for duty-related injuries, in the area of income loss, SISIP is the ‘first-payer’ for LTD for which the soldier also pays 15 per cent of their disability insurance premium while Treasury Board pays the difference.
On the receiving end, except for the benefit initially calculated at five per cent more than the civil service plans, the CF disability plan falls short in several important provisions.
To begin with both PSMIP and DI are not allowed to deduct ‘Pension Act’ monthly awards for pain and suffering, but the military’s SISIP plan deducts every dollar of the Veterans Affairs monthly disability award. This serves as an insulting testament to the military service of the more than 4,000 injured soldiers who are collecting or have collected SISIP LTD benefits since October 2000 and are therefore too disabled to work.
“A VAC award is also referred to as a gratuity and, by definition, a gratuity means a, ‘Thank you in appreciation,’ ” says Cundell. “So when Canada and the government thank me for loss of health and quality of life to my face, the bureaucrats are behind me picking my pocket of that gratuity. So to a disabled veteran gratuity has a completely different definition, compliments of the bureaucrats.”
“Something is wrong here, very wrong,” says retired corporal Kevin Landry a disabled veteran who served as a driver during the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia. “We don’t have the right to public assembly or protest in uniform and once we are out we are scattered across the country. If we were a smaller country we would have gotten together to have this problem looked at.”
And in spite of the fact that the current and previous military ombudsmen have called for an end to these deductions, nothing has been done to date. This, in spite of the fact that the ombudsmen’s recommendations were supported by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs not to mention a majority of MPs who last year passed the Veterans First Motion which included the requirement for the government to “eliminate the unfair reduction of SISIP.”
“Back when I was a sergeant, if I made a promise to my subordinates I either carried through with that promise or I told them exactly why I could not follow through–I did not leave them hanging and that is how I kept their respect,” says Cundell.
Another hallmark of the government’s disability caste system is the fact that PSMIP and certain senior military officers also receive life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment and dependent’s insurance, premiums for which are covered 100 percent by Canadian taxpayers. These plans continue to be paid for by the federal government even when the executives must go on long term disability. Canada’s disabled soldiers receive nothing like this.
While annual increases are capped in both plans, the civil service plan nonetheless allows for 50 per cent more annual increases than the Canadian Forces’ plan which is capped at two per cent. Considering that inflation (Consumer Price Index) has been above two per cent in five of the past seven years, the CF plan’s advantage in benefit payout would be eroded in short order.
Furthermore, federal bureaucrats can continue contributing to their retirement pensions while on an LTD rehabilitation program, a provision not granted to our wounded soldiers. For veterans such as Cundell, whose medical condition forced him to retire two months shy of his full 20-year military pension, this limitation serves as an especially difficult pill to swallow.
“You were told from day one sign this paper and we will take care of you if you get sick,” he says. “Well you did not tell me that it was going to be an adversarial program that was going to put the blocks on me every time I turned around.”
Paradoxically, the civil service plan does not deduct CF retirement pension if awarded due to a medical release from the CF but the Forces disability plan deducts this important benefit. For Kevin Landry, fate and government policy denied him any opportunity to collect a military pension.
“I failed my medical and I couldn’t buy back my time,” he says. “I did everything to keep my job and still it wasn’t enough.”
Corporal Landry was medically released with six years regular force service and six years in the reserves. Since he did not have 10 years in the regular force, he did not qualify for a Canadian Forces retirement pension. Federal bureaucrats, however, qualify for a retirement pension after only two years service if disabled.
Although qualification for both plans does not stipulate whether the disability is caused in the workplace or not, there is a dramatic difference in how the two plans are administered. Civil servants can still be employed in their original position on partial work hours and collect LTD. Canadian Forces members must leave the forces first before collecting benefits. There is no provision which allows CF members to return to work on partial hours and still collect LTD.
Finally, Treasury Board will step in and cover deficits accrued by two of the four disability plans they govern (PSMIP, DI, SISIP and RCMP) but this guarantee does not include the plan covering Canada’s soldiers.
It all boils down to compensating risk. The investment world understands this very well: higher risk requires higher reward. The investment Canada’s government has made in our soldiers has this fundamental law backwards. Most Canadians would easily dispute that a desk-bound senior bureaucrat in Ottawa or even a rear echelon general faces more risk than the frontline soldiers in bases across Canada or in Afghanistan.
“We have to go to war even if it is against our will,” says Landry. “There is a huge difference; we are soldiers; but all the while we in the most dangerous jobs get screwed.”
SISIP refused to return our calls to them on this topic.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain and disabled soldier who served as an intelligence officer in the Canadian Forces for 14 years. He is now and advocate for other disabled veterans. Robert Smol served over 20 years in the Canadian Forces. He is currently a teacher and a freelance journalist in Toronto.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/10/civil-servants-and-soldiers-some-are-more-equal-than-others/
Guest- Guest
The Many Faces of Bravery
by Guest Wed 13 Apr 2016, 06:36
by Sean Bruyea in partnership with Veterans Affairs Canada
Living with post-traumatic stress disorder or any psychological injury related to military service is difficult at the best of times. For the person who suffers from an operational stress injury (OSI), performing basic daily functions can be overwhelming. Often times, families and friends also bear the burden of care and confusion when they try to help their loved ones cope.
Those shared challenges were the focal point of the 2nd National Symposium on OSIs. Ste. Anne’s Hospital hosted the international conference in Montréal in May. More than 400 experts gathered to discuss their experiences, treatments, and ideas about psychological injuries. Great progress is being made in researching and recognizing these traumas. In fact, eight brave people courageously spoke first-hand about their personal battles with OSIs. Veterans Michel Dejardin, Tom Martineau, Christian MacEachern, and Sean Bruyea, sat on a discussion panel and talked about how OSIs have changed their lives. On another panel, family members of Veterans, Anne Préfontaine, Paule Laroche, Elizabeth Aitkins and Chantal Ménard, shared their difficulties and pressures of trying to help their loved ones get through the day. Their testimonials were poignant, eye-opening—and even tragically funny—but they were always very personal and very human.
The panel discussions complemented the clinical presentations and allowed the people who suffer from OSIs to talk directly to the people who help or treat them. This unique exchange and valuable experience will help us provide better care, services, and programs to our clients.
With the help of people who bravely speak out about OSIs and other psychological injuries, Ste. Anne’s Hospital National Centre for Operational Stress Injuries and Veterans Affairs Canada will continue to promote better understanding, care and treatment in these areas.
The editorial staff salutes Sean Bruyea, Captain (retired), who helped prepare this article.
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/10/the-many-faces-of-bravery/
Living with post-traumatic stress disorder or any psychological injury related to military service is difficult at the best of times. For the person who suffers from an operational stress injury (OSI), performing basic daily functions can be overwhelming. Often times, families and friends also bear the burden of care and confusion when they try to help their loved ones cope.
Those shared challenges were the focal point of the 2nd National Symposium on OSIs. Ste. Anne’s Hospital hosted the international conference in Montréal in May. More than 400 experts gathered to discuss their experiences, treatments, and ideas about psychological injuries. Great progress is being made in researching and recognizing these traumas. In fact, eight brave people courageously spoke first-hand about their personal battles with OSIs. Veterans Michel Dejardin, Tom Martineau, Christian MacEachern, and Sean Bruyea, sat on a discussion panel and talked about how OSIs have changed their lives. On another panel, family members of Veterans, Anne Préfontaine, Paule Laroche, Elizabeth Aitkins and Chantal Ménard, shared their difficulties and pressures of trying to help their loved ones get through the day. Their testimonials were poignant, eye-opening—and even tragically funny—but they were always very personal and very human.
The panel discussions complemented the clinical presentations and allowed the people who suffer from OSIs to talk directly to the people who help or treat them. This unique exchange and valuable experience will help us provide better care, services, and programs to our clients.
With the help of people who bravely speak out about OSIs and other psychological injuries, Ste. Anne’s Hospital National Centre for Operational Stress Injuries and Veterans Affairs Canada will continue to promote better understanding, care and treatment in these areas.
The editorial staff salutes Sean Bruyea, Captain (retired), who helped prepare this article.
http://www.seanbruyea.com/2007/10/the-many-faces-of-bravery/
Guest- Guest
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics» Wait time for a result after ombudsman office takes your case.?
» Ombudsman presents 2016 Veterans Ombudsman Commendation Recipients
» The veterans ombudsman also said he believes RCMP officers who serve abroad need to have their own veterans ombudsman.
» Case Manager...
» Hypocrisy Defined
» Ombudsman presents 2016 Veterans Ombudsman Commendation Recipients
» The veterans ombudsman also said he believes RCMP officers who serve abroad need to have their own veterans ombudsman.
» Case Manager...
» Hypocrisy Defined
Page 1 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum