During
the time period leading up to the establishment of the NVC, VAC
acknowledged that CF veterans including the disabled were denied
re-establishment benefits since 1950 including equal access to benefits
like long term care, VIP and Last Post Fund. They also acknowledged that
the RCMP and civilians who served overseas were also entitled to
veterans benefits but they would get to all of that later because their
primary focus was on overtaking the SISIP program and meeting the
transition needs of disabled currently serving CF members and their
families. How did we make out?
On 23 March
2001, the late Ron Duhamel, Minister of Veterans Affairs provided an
inclusive definition of who qualified as a veteran in Canada. The
Government's definition of a veteran is a person who held a military
occupation code and was honourably discharged [paraphrase]. It is a
brilliant definition because it includes veterans past, present and
future creating Canada's concept of 'One Veteran'. So why aren't all
veterans treated or advocated for equally if that and the following was
and is also known:
All active service veterans are equal under the law
1.
in 1999 VAC suggested organizations get in stride with CPVA's research
and approach that was aimed at qualifying CF veterans for existing VAC
benefits
2. In the early 2000's the Justice Department (JD)
confirmed that all active service veterans (WWI, Korea and CF) are equal
under the law.
3. this legal opinion was solicited by VAC following CPVA's presentation to the VAC-CFAC.
5.
VAC did a cost analysis of CPVA's findings to find that it would cost
$4 billion to treat CF veterans equal under section 21(1) of the Pension
Act alone, not counting the cost of rehabilitation and other programs
all CF veterans including the disabled are/were entitled to since 1950.
6. VAC admitted that they have a duty to provide benefits for all CF veteran not just the disabled.
7.
the lump sum and denial of other benefits is the result of the
represented organization's and other participants ignoring human rights
law and the Justice Department's legal opinion.
8. disabled
veterans at the VAC-CFAC table were collecting Pension Act benefits but
did not protest the lump sum benefits (media broadcasts).
Long term care, VIP and Last Post Fund benefits
1.
the Government has agreed since the 1990's that CF active service
veterans qualify for these three benefits programs including admission
to VAC's existing long term care facilities.
3.
the three organizations boycotted the VAC-CFAC among other things to
force the Minister's hand to qualify the WWII Allied veterans and
denying the same benefits for qualified CF active service veterans.
4. the DM VAC at the time advised CAVUNP, CPVA and the GWVA to distance themselves from ANAVets, NCVA and the RCL's WWII agenda.
5.
VAC is shutting down the programs in veterans facilities knowing that
CF veterans were duped out of them. The ANAVets, NCVA and RCL are
watching it happen without intervention.
NVC
1.
there were no comprehensive studies conducted by VAC, VAC-CFAC or the
Modernization Task Force to prove that lump sum benefits were more
effective than Pension Act benefits. In fact, they had conclusive
evidence to the contrary including the VAC Gerontological report.
2.
senior VAC bureaucrats like Darragh Mogan led people to believe that a
change from the Pension Act benefits for CF veterans was required
because Parliament's amendment to the Pension Act allowing CF members
to collect disability benefits while still serving was putting a strain
on the Pension Act money. There is no conclusive evidence to support
that position.
3. the NVC is a duplicate of SISP programs
because VAC made it clear in the 1990's that they wanted to overtake
SISIP. This means that NVC programs are based on a for profit insurance
company model rather than the more generous social contract model
consistent with the spirit and intent of veterans legislation meeting
the test of human rights law.
4. VAC's plan was to become the
disability management department for federal government agencies like
the RCMP, Corrections, Customs, etc. That is why language on the
generous nature of veterans legislation found in places like section 2
of the Pension Act and section 3 of the VRAB Act are nowhere to be found
in the NVC.
5. I've witnessed and understand there may be
more incidents where the RCL was found advocating with VAC to become
service provider for NVC programs while advocating lesser benefits for
CF veterans. Evidence is found in VAC documentation.
6.
veterans organizations were duped by the Minister into believing that
they would have an opportunity to amend the NVC during the normal
legislative process of bringing the Bill into force in 2005. The Bill
was rammed through the process and the opportunity denied yet none of
the organizations agreed to protest. Instead, they went before the Media
and Senate committee supporting the NVC without knowing it's
consequences.
8.
the NVC and Enhanced NVC Act have not gone though the necessary human
rights law screening yet the involved organizations and individuals many
of whom collect Pension Act benefits support the creation of different
classes of disabled veterans despite the issue being challenged in the
court. The Legion's 8 May 2013 letter given wide distribution stands as
evidence.
9. the NVC is being challenged in the courts by
Miller Thompson and Equitas to address the above Charter of Rights
concerns. The RCL has a letter of support posted on the Equitas webpage.
10. veterans
collecting Pension Act disability benefits are entitled to most rehab
and financial benefits of the NVC and Enhanced NVC Act therefore have
greater advantage over lump sum recipients.
11. The Pension
Act is always legally speaking as the legislation to compensate disabled
veterans and their families. Therefore there was no legal basis for the
government to create the discriminatory and problematic Part III of the
NVC.her benefits of the NVC
12. the NVC is being marketed as
an inclusive legislation meaning that all parts are dependent upon one
another. That is simply not true because veterans with 100% Pension Act
benefits also qualify for NVC and Enhanced NVC Act rehab and other
benefits.
13. veterans organizations and individuals involved
in these consultations may be contravening the Canadian Human Rights Act
by advocating for incremental fixes to the NVC without addressing the
greater Constitution and human rights concerns.
In
light of the above and anything you may wish to add, comments on the
following questions are encouraged to get the dialogue going and clear
the air:
1. How can veterans representing others at the
consultation table justify supporting the lump sum benefits for others
while collecting Pension Act benefits for themselves?
2. What
do the participants in the consultation groups hope to achieve by not
filtering their suggestions and recommendations through the lens of
human rights laws, the Veterans Bill of Rights and the concept of 'One
Veteran'?
3. Can an organization objectively advocate for
disabled while supporting a discriminatory agenda or advocating to
become a VAC service provider? Are organizations in a conflict of
interest if they take money from the government while lobbying against
it?
4. Do the representatives participating in the
consultation groups have the authority to represent all veterans and
their families or their memberships only?
5. How would the
organizations suggest opening communications and consultations between
our three social contract partners (the Government, people of Canada and
us) to ensure broader inclusive participation in addressing veterans
issues?
6. What will the ANAVets, RCL and NCVA do to repair
the damage caused by their putting non-Canadian military service
veterans ahead of qualified CF active service veterans and their
families for access to long term care facilities, equality for VIP
benefits and equal access to Last Post Fund burial benefits to level the
playing field?
7. Has the status quo worked in addressing the
greater problems of the NVC when compared to the actual needs of
veterans and their families to date? What can we do as a community to
improve how we are represented?
Don't you
think CF veterans and their families have suffered discrimination long
enough? Shouldn't we benefit from lessons learned and not repeat the
same mistakes that got us into this problem in the first place? Your
voice is important to help move the community forward.
We
can only hope that your rich, transparent, factual and respectful
feedback will expose the root problems to help fix the division and
discrimination in the veterans community, make the concept of 'One
Veteran" a reality and bring credibility to the words of the 'Veterans
Bill of Rights'.
The bottom line is that all
veterans are equal under the law therefore CF veterans and their
family's deserve equal benefits. Anything less is not acceptable.
I look forward to your comments and thoughts. Don't miss the opportunity to be heard.
Sincerely
