As someone who has been heavily involved in Canadian Veterans Advocacy (CVA) activities for several years, I'm personally getting a little tired of the lies and innuendo being spread about the organization.
I have personally invested hundreds of hours in direct assistance to veterans who have needed assistance from VAC. This includes initial applications for disability benefits, encouraging veterans to pursue Departmental Reviews and VRAB appeals through Bureau of Pensions Advocates, and in general providing information about how to deal with VAC and other agencies that provide support that veterans need. I know many other members of CVA who provide the same support.
I have personally seen the post that Michael Blais made that raised the ire of the other members of the VAC Policy Advisory Group. The post was made directly to CVA membership, and was not public. That said, there is absolutely nothing in the post that even remotely violates the confidentiality of "deliberations". Nobody was mentioned by name. The details that were revealed such as the fact that the Lump Sum Award (LSA) was discussed, and that the consensus (except Mike Blais) was that the LSA was deemed sufficient should not be privileged information; in fact, the veteran's community at large OUGHT to know what their stakeholder representatives are taking to the table during these discussions. If the stakeholders were upset that it was revealed that their organization's position was against an increase to the LSA, or a return to a lifetime Disability Pension system, then perhaps they ought to re-evaluate whether they are truly representing the wishes of the members of their organizations. The terms of reference for the Policy Advisory Group states:
If members cannot speak publicly about the positions other organizations are taking for or against various measures, then where is the openness? The
Records of Discussion for the Policy Advisory Group are a joke. There is little to no detail about any discussion concerning the appropriateness of the amount of the Disability Award, or about any discussion concerning a return to the Disability Pension - only to a pension "option", whatever the hell that is.
Fact of the matter is, Mike Blais has, from the outset, demanded openness and transparency from the Policy Advisory Group. The other members clearly want to operate in a cloud of secrecy, which raises a huge red flag about exactly what these other veterans group's agendas are. If the other members of the PAG get their knickers in a bunch over the fact that Mike Blais commented in his post that he was fairly sure someone laughed when he proposed an increase in the LSA to $500K, then Mike Blais isn't the problem - the problem is with the individual who clearly shouldn't have the privilege of speaking on behalf of veterans, and can't conduct him or herself accordingly on discussions of a matter very important to wounded and injured veterans. Mike Blais has always been completely up-front and open about what position he's taking to the table - the other organizations represented at the PAG cannot say the same.
My personal opinion? The other members of the PAG complained using a hopelessly weak argument concerning Blais' openness with CVA members to oust a threat to their secretive ways of doing business. If your veteran's organization can't come to the table with full disclosure about what their agenda is, then you don't belong at the table.