Here is another conversation posted on veteranvoice about a meeting that went on 2 March 2006 passing along for your info.....
link to page www.veteranvoice.info/bulletinboard.htm need to click latestnews left side
Bureaucrats Plan to Bring New CF Disability Programs Online April Fool’s Day:
New Package Takes Away Far More than it Gives Disabled Soldiers of Afghanistan and Future Actions
Text of Press Conference March 21, 2006
Introduction
As you are aware, Veterans Affairs Canada plans on bringing C-45, or the so-called Veterans Charter, into force on April 1, 2006. C-45 programs will not directly affect any of the retired CF members here today. Their military experience reflects a wide range of combat and peacekeeping missions from Cyprus, Namibia and the Gulf War to the horrors of Visoko, Sarajevo and Srebrenica as well as Rwanda. All of these veterans are here today in a show of support for the men and women in uniform who may not know the details concerning C-45 and who cannot speak out.
I would like to introduce our first presenter, Sergeant Tom Hoppe.
Tom Hoppe: Biography
Sergeant Hoppe served in the CF for 20 years, working in Germany, New Zealand and Bosnia. In 1994, while serving in the former Yugoslavia, Sergeant Hoppe risked his life to rescue three undefended children who were being shot at by snipers. He went on to successfully command his patrol during several highly dangerous engagements with opposing forces. In recognition of his conspicuous leadership and bravery under fire, the Governor General awarded Tom Hoppe with both the Meritorious Service Cross and the Medal of Bravery. As Canada’s most decorated soldier since the Korean War, Tom Hoppe has been the subject of documentary films, featured in three books, listed in Canada’s "Who’s Who," and, in a recent ceremony, had a street named in his honour by the City of Calgary.
No other modern CF member, retired or otherwise since the Korean War, including our most distinguished Generals are as decorated for bravery as Tom.
In recognition of his leadership, Tom was appointed to the DND Ombudsman Advisory Committee in 2001.
Tom Hoppe: Presentation
As a citizen and former soldier, I was shocked to find out the new veterans bill or C-45 takes away more than it gives to our troops in Afghanistan if they get hurt. Knowing this I could not in good conscience just turn a blind eye and say nothing. Although these new programs do not directly affect me, I cannot stand on the sidelines knowing the negative impact C-45 programs will have on our troops.
60 years ago, our grandfathers returned from war and were provided with good and comprehensive veterans benefits. One must ask why the new veterans’ bill, slated to go into effect April 1, gives dramatically less to the soldier in Afghanistan than their grandfathers received for the same disabilities.
Canadians may find it difficult to imagine that a young person who grew up on video games and Reality shows requires the same benefits as their grandfathers did when they returned from war. There is an unfortunate perception that peacekeepers do not face the same dangers as soldiers in previous conflicts. Canadians also think that our modern veterans are well looked after when they become disabled as a result of their service. However, modern peacekeeping is warfare and bullets, bombs and the horrors of war cause the same damage to the human mind and body today as they did in the past.
I know MPs from all parties support our troops and in their hearts want to do the best for our veterans and soldiers. I also know that the greatest change in the way Canadians treat disabled soldiers and their families was rushed through Parliament for all the wrong reasons last May. Most if not all MPs, serving CF members, Veterans, their families and Canadians did not have the time to understand the implications of the new veterans Charter. Passing C-45 through the full committee stage undoubtedly would have provided the MPs, the veterans community, the CF and Canadians with the necessary information to make an informed decision. But this did not happen.
You will hear Veterans Affairs bureaucrats say the bill was supported by six veterans’ organizations. But what they will not say is that a maximum of two members represented each organization and that the individuals were sworn to secrecy. The representatives were not permitted to divulge the details of C-45 to any of their members. Is this consultation? Furthermore, the veterans representing the organization are ex-soldiers, not lawyers and therefore, they might not understand the full consequences of this bill.
There are also some very senior veterans, some in government who support this bill. I believe that these senior veterans probably don’t understand the implications of C-45. If they do and still support C-45 I ask them to lead by example and give up their current disability benefits in favour of the new benefits offered under C-45. Actually, if VAC as well as the traditional veterans organization truly believe C-45 is an improvement in benefits as they claim, then why not make every veteran equal and have the benefits of this bill retroactive to the Second Word War veterans.
How can fathers and grandfathers support a bill that gives less to their sons and grandsons who are serving in Afghanistan? Should not a parent want the same or better life for their children?
Young men and women are fighting to bring democracy to Afghanistan and yet they were denied the democratic process in their own country with a bill that will affect not only the their own lives but the lives of their families.
This is a democracy and as citizens we have a right to be involved and voice our concerns if something is not right. If we as veterans and citizens sit back and do not get involved in the process then we have given permission for government and bureaucrats to make decisions on our behalf that will affect our well being and future. I as well as many others are now discovering the truth behind creating bill C-45: it appears to be all about money. One must ask if the bureaucrats are so insensitive as to take away benefits from disabled soldiers and their families, when will it stop? Old age benefits? CPP disability benefits?
We have sent a number of separate letters to the Prime Minster, the Ministers of Defence and Veterans Affairs as well as a number of opposition MP’s. We have called upon them to send C-45 back to the committees and consultation it has thus far been denied. The government must ensure that the right people are involved not because of rank or positions held, but like Sean here because of the knowledge they bring to the table.
There are many dangers in taking a new military vehicle onto the battlefield without first testing its capabilities and limits. C-45 is so new, very few if any understand the implications and details of C-45 outside of a very closed group of bureaucrats. It would be very unwise to take such an important piece of legislation onto the field untested especially since we are not talking about vehicles but the lives of disabled soldiers and their families.
Louise: Biography
Next, I would like to present Lt(N) Louise Richard. Louise has been a cornerstone of veterans’ rights, defending the disabled when many have remained silent. She served as a Nurse in the forward field Hospital during the Gulf War and returned suffering a battery of debilitating symptoms commonly referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. Her experience in fighting through the often insensitive and unprepared bureaucracy for her care strongly impacted her sense of justice. Ever since she has fought to ensure that disabled veterans and their families receive the care and dignity Canadians and the Canadian Government expect to grant those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend Canada and the world. She was one of only three individuals who were willing to speak out against C-45 in the Senate Committee hearing held in May 2005.
Louise Richard: Presentation
When I first heard about the proposed new “Veterans Charter”, I also believed that C-45 would be good for disabled veterans and their families. However, on closer viewing, I came to realize that this enormous change in the way Canada would treat disabled veterans had some very serious problems. The root of these problems can likely be traced to the failure to consult with the actual disabled veterans and their families when the bureaucracy wrote the legislation. When I heard that due process, the foundation of our democracy, was being bypassed, I had to speak out. It was for this reason that I testified at a very rushed 2 hour Senate hearing regarding C-45 on May 11, 2005. The one positive result of the hearing was the conclusion of the Senate that the so-called Veterans Charter failed to take into account the needs of the more disabled soldiers, veterans and their families. For this reason, Veterans Affairs Canada was obligated to create the Special Needs Advisory Group or SNAG in September of 2005. I was extremely honoured when VAC invited me to be a permanent-sitting member on SNAG. I was most encouraged thinking that the needs of the most disabled soldiers and veterans would finally be addressed.
Six months later, I am here to tell you that I am very uncomfortable with the new Veterans Charter. Unfortunately, the excellent dedication and work of all the SNAG members appears to have resulted in little if any positive change in the actual programs. I, personally, will be unaffected by C-45 directly. However, my sense of justice is severely troubled to think that those future soldiers and veterans most needing help when they become disabled will not have their needs met by C-45. My heart has always been with those veterans, young and old, who have fallen through the cracks. I truly believe that Veterans Affairs was willing to change their approach in dealing with seriously disabled soldiers and their families. I am afraid that as C-45 is currently written, the special needs of disabled soldiers, veterans and their families, which care for them, will not be met. As such, I hereby announce that if the C-45 comes into force as it is currently written, I will offer my resignation on that day.
Conclusion: Sean Bruyea
Completely revamping a disability and health care program for disabled veterans which has been in place for almost an entire century is an extremely complex undertaking. For this reason alone, C-45 needs to be revisited by Parliamentary committees and the Canadian public in open and transparent consultations which have thus far been lacking. One must question the bureaucrats’ urgency in forcing through C-45 since even the RCMP who are presently covered under the current program have not signed on to the new benefits. As I understand, the RCMP feels that C-45 does not meet their needs. This begs the question: how can C-45 meet the needs of the CF if it does not meet the needs of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
The cornerstone of the C-45 employment program is priority job placement in the Federal Public Service. However, approximately 50% of the positions in the Federal government require university education and C-45 does not provide any university education.
Bureaucrats will tell you that they promise to amend policies after April 1, 2006. However, ignoring the bureaucrats’ failed promises to consult with the disabled stakeholders in this process, no amount of change to the policies or regulations will fix the flaws of the actual legislation.
It is very likely that had the office existed, an Ombudsman for VAC would have been able to raise the alarms on the secretive process in creating C-45 as well as pointing out the many flaws of the actual programs. It is our hope that the creation of VAC Ombudsman may allow such an office to yet review the legislation and make recommendations BEFORE new programs are put into effect.
It must be emphasized that the few veteran organizations involved in the so-called consultations are supporting a program which takes away a lifelong disability award for the brave soldiers in Afghanistan while the members of their organisations continue to receive their awards for life.
The sixty thousand serving CF members including 2200 soldiers in Afghanistan joined the Canadian Forces with the clear understanding that if disabled they would be cared / for life under the current programs. We do not feel that the bureaucrats have the right to reduce their disability and care benefits after the soldiers have already joined without full disclosure to the soldiers as to what they are giving up. One can only imagine paying up front for a new red pick up truck and then showing up at the dealership and being given a used yellow compact car. C-45 is not what was in the contract when the soldiers signed up.
The soldiers in the CF are fulfilling their end of the bargain, that is, willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. The bureaucrats have no right to change the terms of the contract and reduce disability benefits midstream.
The brave men and women in Afghanistan are risking their lives defending others; it is up to Canada and Canadians to defend the rights of our men and women in uniform while they protect ours.
