# Are you happy with the way the opposition parties are criticizing VA?



## FSTO (4 Dec 2014)

Are they being honourable or political?

Do you believe that if the Liberals or NDP are elected, will the VA get any better? 

- tiny mod correction of title spelling -


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Dec 2014)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Are they being honourable or political?
> 
> Do you believe that if the Liberals or NDP are elected, will the VA get any better? criticizing



Political

No


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Dec 2014)

Political

Not a hope in (*&%(@ hell.


----------



## Tibbson (5 Dec 2014)

I think it's all just political because if the opposition parties were sincere they wouldn't let the government get away with their weak and evasive answers in the HoC.  

As to whether or not they will do any better once (or ever in the case of the NDP) get into power all I can say is there are very few universal truths but I honestly believe that political parties using the CAF and/or Vets for their own political gain is one of them.  The party that criticizes the government over it's treatment of Vets today wont change how Vets are treated once they get elected.  History over the last 30-40 years has shown that each time.  

They have repeatedly shown they have no honour and just today I wrote my MP (a Conservative no less) and told him exactly how I felt about the whole mess.  I expect a form letter drafted by some mid level functionary and signed by an autopen in reply but at least I got some points off my chest.   rly:


----------



## Happy Guy (5 Dec 2014)

I believe that the intent by the opposition parties is to better the veterans and it is to their advantage to make a ruckus about the sordid affairs going on at Veteran Affairs.

Yes all political parties agreed to the new Veteran's Charter but let us accept that the majority of politicians, and to be fair most Canadians, did not fully analyze and understand the implications of this bill upon the veterans.  As it was explained to me by Veterans Affair employee this bill is designed to get you back into the work force and not give life time benefits for any of your disability(ies).

I believe that the current minister cares about the veterans but his personality is not suitable for this dept.  In addition it does not help that he is not able to do anything without direction from the PMO's COS (kids in shorts) whose sole purpose is to protect the PM at the expense of the other ministers.

As an outsider looking in it looks like the current government is loath to help any veteran because it of the fiscal costs involved, however I firmly believe that the no opposition party is able to do any better to sort out Veterans Affairs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2014)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Are they being honourable or political?
> 
> Do you believe that if the Liberals or NDP are elected, will the VA get any better?


Political.

Not if it costs $.



			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I believe that the intent by the opposition parties is to better the veterans and it is to their advantage to make a ruckus about the sordid affairs going on at Veteran Affairs.


And if it costs significant amounts of money, neither of them will do anything substantive if they became the ruling party.



			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Yes all political parties agreed to the new Veteran's Charter but let us accept that the majority of politicians, and to be fair most Canadians, did not fully analyze and understand the implications of this bill upon the veterans.


Lucky they voted unanimously in favour of the NVC, then, eh?



			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I believe that the current minister cares about the veterans but his personality is not suitable for this dept.  In addition it does not help that he is not able to do anything without direction from the PMO's COS (kids in shorts) whose sole purpose is to protect the PM at the expense of the other ministers.


An absence of orders to do truly better by the vets = no intent to do truly better by the vets



			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> As an outsider looking in it looks like the current government is loath to help any veteran because of *the fiscal costs involved*, however I firmly believe that the *no opposition party is able to do any better to sort out Veterans Affairs*.


 :nod: on both counts



			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I think it's all just political because if the opposition parties were sincere they wouldn't let the government get away with their weak and evasive answers in the HoC.


1)  The government rehearses how it responds to questions in the House (see attached), so all we get is what we get - as someone smarter than me said, it's called "Question Period", not "Answer Period".
2)  Given that, what should the opposition parties do?



			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> They have repeatedly shown they have no honour and just today I wrote my MP (a Conservative no less) and told him exactly how I felt about the whole mess.  I expect a form letter drafted by some mid level functionary and signed by an autopen in reply but at least I got some points off my chest.   rly:


You're right to expect a canned response - still, in spite of apparently being able to get better answers only if you're a party supporter, well done for being heard.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Dec 2014)

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1255752-veterans-affairs-managers-reaped-rewards-after-cuts

Maybe, just maybe the Loyal Opposition could ask why middle level managers in the employ of the Federal government get bonuses for cutting staff and services to veterans.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2014)

A very good interview with Maj (Ret'd) Mark Campbell, one of the six veterans fighting in the Courts, on CBC providing an excellent insight as to what the fight is all about:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2624683706/


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1255752-veterans-affairs-managers-reaped-rewards-after-cuts
> 
> Maybe, just maybe the Loyal Opposition could ask why middle level managers in the employ of the Federal government get bonuses for cutting staff and services to veterans.



Middle level managers get bonuses for saving money and cutting expenses. If this can be construed as increasing productivity or "doing more for less" by senior managment, then bonuses, congratulations and tea and crumpets all around are warrented. How it looks to you and I on the outside is less relevant in this construct.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1255752-veterans-affairs-managers-reaped-rewards-after-cuts
> 
> Maybe, just maybe the Loyal Opposition could ask why middle level managers in the employ of the Federal government get bonuses for cutting staff and services to veterans.


1)  Count on this coming up next week in QP (with the usual responses of "why can't the opposition support our veterans more (by voting for omnibus bills that include legislative "poison pills" the opposition doesn't want)?"
2)  How about the government asking?
2)  To be fair to VAC, I'm guessing this happens across ALL departments in one form or another.  I suppose front-line staff taking sick leave is a sexier issue to tackle (playing to taxpayer stereotypes) than managerial bonuses in the midst of budget cuts.


----------



## Gronk (5 Dec 2014)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any the opposition parties have committed to ending the NVC lump sum award and bringing back lifetime pensions.


----------



## Gronk (5 Dec 2014)

Further to my last - Until they do make that commitment, and act on it, they are just blowing smoke in my opinion.


----------



## GK .Dundas (5 Dec 2014)

I have begun to wonder quite frankly if the right question to ask is, does the elected government actually still running VAC ? I ask this because at times it seems to be the other way around .Have they lost control of the department ? 
 It may explain a great deal.


----------



## brihard (5 Dec 2014)

Gronk said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any the opposition parties have committed to ending the NVC lump sum award and bringing back lifetime pensions.



I haven't seen it, no. The opposition are big on what they don't like, and they're definitely trying to harness us up for some political mileage. I've yet to see any concrete promise out of any of them about what they will do better.

The general momentum in government policy is away from very costly defined-benefit pension plans, and I think to an extent this will carry over into military disability pensions. Now that lump sum is in place, it's much easier for any party to not get rid of them for whatever BS reason they can come up with. I want to see a return to pensions, but I'm skeptical. as hell. It's frustrating because the array of benefits - SISIP, ELB, PIA, means there are a number of different benefits that bring regular payments, but figuring them all out is somewhat baffling.

If I can pretend to be king for a second, why not just something simple like a disability pension as was the case before, a generous career education/retraining benefit, and an incentive to get back to work- say, fifty cents on the dollar reduction in payments against any earned income, so you can still get back to work, but if you have a regression in your condition or have trouble finding *good* work, you're still collecting that disability pension both as compensation for lost income and as compensation for the pain and suffering element. Support guys who are hurt, offer them routes back to work (not just for economic reasons but for their own mental and emotional health), and offer them an incentive to do so by letting them keep some net gain from gainful employment while receiving disability benefits. It would seem to fairly easily balance a number of factors and interests...


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Dec 2014)

Gronk said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any the opposition parties have committed to ending the NVC lump sum award and bringing back lifetime pensions.



For that to happen the Liberals would have to admit that they were wrong. I don't see that happening any time soon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2014)

The government is in court, right now, arguing against a suit brought by some wounded members, including an Army.ca member. The government's position is that while the benefits in the New Veterans' Charter are, indeed, "less generous," it is Parliament's right and duty to set limits to public expenditures, including limits to benefits for men and women most grievously wounded in the service of the country.

I have argued before that the benefits voted in the 1940s and '50s were very, very generous and that Parliament does, indeed, have a duty to _manage_ such spending for the greatest good of all. What I have argued against is that it was done in a manner that unilaterally changed conditions of service while Canadian troops were actively engaged in combat. I believe that - legislation brought in by Liberal PM Paul Martin but passed with all party support - was immoral, but I believe it can still  be rectified by "grandfathering" all those who were serving up to the day the legislation was signed into law (Spring of 2006, as I recall). That would be a little bit embarrassing to some politicians and a lot of bureaucrats and a wee, tiny bit costly, but easy to manage and political *gold*.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Dec 2014)

I haven't paid much attention to the Act, but it is always imprudent to offer lump sums instead of steady payouts.  Few people manage money well.

What passes for a default "long term disability" plan is generally something intended to support a person for some limited period - six months, a year, two years - during which they are expected to acquire new skills and employment within the limitations of their impediments.  As long as a person is capable of some sort of employment, the benefits will end.  If you want real lifetime "long term disability", there are financial products available.

This is all of a piece with governments seeking to align public employee compensation with customary practices elsewhere in order to reign in past overcommitments.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Dec 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If you want real lifetime "long term disability", there are financial products available.



You mean like the SISIP LTD that we're forced to pay into but rarely get to use?


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2014)

The opposition are hoping to harness the outrage that the "Veteran's Industry" is generating without having to actually propose any solutions. It seems to be working so far.

How sad that these generally well meaning advocates are allowing themselves to be so easily used and discarded (unless they put a fire to the feet of Tom Mulcaire and the Young Dauphin to demand _what sort of changes_ their parties would institute if in government, and get it loudly and publicly proclaimed so they will face backlash when they renege, the vets will get absolutely nothing from any new government, _*not even a pat on the back*_).

As a serving member myself, and with a wife who is in an ongoing battle with VA/SISSIP, I can certainly sympathize, but knowing that the other parities are likely to be even _more_ of an obstacle rather than less, I do not support the current course of the Veteran's Industry, and can hardly think of any more counterproductive COA for getting changes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I believe that - legislation brought in by Liberal PM Paul Martin but passed with all party support - was immoral, but I believe it can still  be rectified by "grandfathering" all those who were serving up to the day the legislation was signed into law (Spring of 2006, as I recall). That would be a little bit embarrassing to some politicians and a lot of bureaucrats and a wee, tiny bit costly, but easy to manage and political *gold*.


Bang on - although the bits in orange are significant "speed bumps" these days.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Dec 2014)

I am sure many here have served under an RSM/CO that they didn't particularly like for whatever reason. RSMs/COs come and go, but the Regiment remains.

It is the same for VAC. Ministers come and go. The current Minister's personality, thus image is not seen favorably by some. The opposition parties and the enabler media see this an opening to smash the Harper government. and that's all it is. An opening to smash the government. The opposition parties with very few exceptions and the enablers don't really give a rats ass about Vets. If they did they would write a Bill, get support from all the other parties and put it on the Order Paper to go to Committee, etc, and eventually a vote. Then the government would be faced with a decision to vote approval or introduce their own Bill.

The problem, besides the current legislation/regulations is VAC itself and it's systematic disfunction. A culture of deny, deny, deny.
I personally have received letters from VAC addressed to me, but the salutation and some of the info has nothing to do with me. It is a deny form letter where the client's info is plugged in.

I hope the new Deputy Minister gets a grip. VAC needs a house cleaning besides new legislation/regulations.

As ERC restated above #15, my repost from Election 2015:

As I posted years ago, the Tables of Disabilities were amended effective 1 Apr 06. These new Tables, as intimated by several VAC employees are not as "generous" as the previous Tables. This was done while Cdn service people were engaged in combat.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/after-injury/disability-benefits/benefits-determined/table-of-disabilities/tod1995

   





> Introduction
> 
> The 1995 edition of the Table of Disabilities (TOD) is the instrument used by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) to assess the extent of disability from a pensioned/entitled condition, as well as the 2006 edition.



http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/after-injury/disability-benefits/benefits-determined/table-of-disabilities


> The old Table of Disabilities affects decisions prior to 1 Apr 06




What this means is that it is more difficult to achieve a favorable decision for disabilities caused by service in the CF.

When you receive your rejection letter for reassessment for a disability under the previous tables, it will state your condition is grandfathered under the criteria of the 1995 Tables implying the assessment is not within the criteria of the 2006 Tables.

What   





> ......as well as the 2006 edition.



under the Introduction to the 1995 Tables means to me is if you were lucky to get your disability ruling prior to 1 Apr 06, you would not get the assessment under the new Tables. Additionally, for the reassessment, your disability is being assessed on the 2006 Tables, not the Tables originally assessed by, but VAC cannot take away a previous assessment, thus grandfathered. No wonder reassessments are very probably not often favorably granted.

Not only the loss of a monthly pension in favor of a insulting one time cash settlement, but difficulty meeting a less "generous" standard.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Dec 2014)

>The opposition parties with very few exceptions and the enablers don't really give a rats *** about Vets. If they did they would write a Bill...

Exactly so.  A federal election lies immediately ahead.  A Bill and a vote would disambiguate positions to be considered by voters.  Veterans, but particularly veterans who have suffered for their service, rightly command respect and sympathy from most Canadians.  The opposition parties want to talk about new spending and how they would pay for it.  Put up, or shut up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I am sure many here have served under an RSM/CO that they didn't particularly like for whatever reason. RSMs/COs come and go, but the Regiment remains.
> 
> It is the same for VAC. Ministers come and go. The current Minister's personality, thus image is not seen favorably by some. The opposition parties and the enabler media see this an opening to smash the Harper government. and that's all it is. An opening to smash the government. The opposition parties with very few exceptions and the enablers don't really give a rats ass about Vets. If they did they would write a Bill, get support from all the other parties and put it on the Order Paper to go to Committee, etc, and eventually a vote. Then the government would be faced with a decision to vote approval or introduce their own Bill.
> 
> ...



TFTFY


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Dec 2014)

Once again, Bruce MacKinnon of the Chronicle Herald hits the bulls eye with his cartoon.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2014-12-06-editorial-cartoon


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If they did they would write a Bill, get support from all the other parties and put it on the Order Paper to go to Committee, etc, and eventually a vote. Then the government would be faced with a decision to vote approval or introduce their own Bill.


Whereas a *majority* government could fix things if it wanted, and in the current case, hasn't and won't.

To use R'man62's analogy, when the CO _really_ wants things to change or happen, no matter what the rules asay, it _can_ change or happen - note here, here and [urlhttp://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/24/after-intervention-by-environment-minister-peter-kent-lucy-the-goose-goes-home/]here.  And if the CO can't/doesn't make...ing enough at any level to prove differently.


----------



## FSTO (8 Dec 2014)

Major (Ret) Campbell has had interviews with CBC and CTV over the past two days. In both of these interviews he has called out the senior mandarins within the department as the "architects" of the New Veterans Charter and as the ones responsible for the mess within the department. Each time, Robert Fife (CTV) and Evan Solomon basically stopped their respective interviews after Mr Campbell made the accusations. It seemed to me that Mr Campbell's version was not fitting in with the established narrative. 
Do I have a tinfoil hat on or did anyone else get that impression.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2014)

That sounds about right to me. It is consistent with the current brand of _"Gotcha" journalism_; right now the journalists have their sights (and bonus cheques) set on Minister Fantino. Even journalists as shallow as Messers Fife and Solomon ought to know that policy is made and implemented by very, very senior bureaucrats ... people that no government regulated radio/TV broadcast news network wants to annoy.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Dec 2014)

Both opposition parties and the media have had a target painted on Mr Fantino from the day he announced his candidacy.


----------



## TCM621 (9 Dec 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Both opposition parties and the media have had a target painted on Mr Fantino from the day he announced his candidacy.


It's a well earned target


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2014)

Well I am going to throw this out there:

We (my wife and I) are in the midst of a multi year battle with VAC over payments. It is leaving both of us physically and emotionally exhausted (as we get passed from office to office only to discover one office has no idea of what the other one did. The people who work there are incompetent, lazy or both, in the very recent past we have been told there were no records of certain events [which my wife pulled from _her_ copy of the file to refute them] and that she was never in one office (despite the fact she cited witnesses who work in that actual office who spoke to her). The latest outrage is she was called to the office for an appointment, discovered the case worker had never read her file so what was it the case worker called her in for anyway?) and my wife was told that the new case worker "wasn't interested" in anything farther back than six months ago, despite a chain of errors, arbitrary discisions and miscommunications dating back almost 4 years now.....

Of course since the amount of money is never consistent and can be arbitrarily changed, we are also spiralling towards financial distress as well, to the point we are now forced to sell our house and radically downsize before my children are finished school.

My point is that VAC is dysfunctional due to the overly complex and arbitrary bureaucracy, and I have no evidence that _any_ political party has any plan to streamline the system, or clean out the stupid, lazy and incompetent workers who staff VAC. I'm sure "Veteran's Industry" people will be jumping up and down with delight thinking I am for "them", but sorry chums, _you_ don't have any solution nor any "pull" to make changes happen. The only thing I can do in political terms (besides writing increasingly lethal memos) is look at the "rest" of the picture and see what platform has the best chance of offering a net improvement in our condition, for example job prospects, lower taxes and fees or any other means of pulling ahead.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Dec 2014)

thanks for that clip above George. I watched the interview that Mark gave and I am aware of the sacrifices that he made. That interview should be re-posted in the recruiting thread. I am struck by what he says and my take away is that had this honourable, brave and loyal man been blown to pieces in 2006 he would be better off than when he was actually subsequently wounded, so why would anyone join up now. Younger soldiers take heed, the government views your injuries and wounds not as honourable service but simply as an insurance liability to be arbitrarily degraded and VAC is nothing more than a cheap, low cost no-fault insurance company acting under the guise of a government department.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Dec 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It's a well earned target



I would have to agree with that. I cannot see how Walt N will be able to make the system work for the benefit of veterans. I believe there is a well dug in bureaucracy that will resist any substantial change.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Dec 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I would have to agree with that. I cannot see how Walt N will be able to make the system work for the benefit of veterans. I believe there is a well dug in bureaucracy that will resist any substantial change.



Jim, I think you're right. We can rail all we want at the politicians, but unless the bureaucrats are on board no change will be forthcoming.


----------



## FSTO (22 Dec 2014)

Sadly the British comedy "Yes Minister" is an accurate description of the bureaucracy that inhabits Ottawa today.


----------



## Jed (22 Dec 2014)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Sadly the British comedy "Yes Minister" is an accurate description of the bureaucracy that inhabits Ottawa today.



The bureaucracies are also well dug in at the provincial level as well as at the federal level. The civil services have iron rice bowls that can not be easily shattered.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2014)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Sadly tThe British comedy "Yes Minister" is an accurate description of the bureaucracy that inhabits Ottawa today.




It isn't sad. In fact, I would argue that an effective Westminster style parliamentary democracy depends upon it. The bureaucracy, when it works well - and I would also argue that it usually works better than we acknowledge or deserve - presents a measure of _stability_ that keeps elected governments from going off half cocked.

Not all bits and pieces of the bureaucracy are paragons of virtue or efficiency ... they, like most things, work on a bell curve and the top bits (2+% found in say PCO and Finance, 13+% found in e.g. Treasury Board, Industry, Foreign Affairs, etc) must be balanced by a similar load of third or fourth raters, some of whom may (very likely) be found in e.g. Veterans' Affairs.


----------

