All posts in category C4A Editorial

Liberals’ new ‘pension for life’ for veterans fails to live up to campaign promises

This piece was first published on the CBC website on January 2, 2018.

Canada’s military veterans who endure disabling injuries were hoping for a Christmas present: a fulfilment of the Liberal campaign promise to “re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for injured veterans.” Instead, the government merely resurrected ghosts of Christmases past with a hodgepodge of benefits that amount to recycled, remodeled and repackaged programs that already exist.

The proposed pension for life — which was promised as an alternative to the lump-sum payments introduced under the New Veterans Charter of 2006 — is a clear reduction of the lofty scheme that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau personally promised while he was campaigning.

Instead of the Liberal commitment of offering lifelong pensions for veterans applying for disability assistance after 2006, veterans will have to wait until April 2019 to choose between the existing lump sum and a new lifelong pension that, when all is said and done, will pay far less than one half of the pre-2006 pension.

Compensation for injuries

Some background first. When Canadian Forces members suffer disabling military injuries and are released from the Forces, Veterans Affairs Canada is legally obligated to provide both pain and suffering non-taxable compensation, as well as taxable compensation for lost income.… Read the rest

Less pretty words, more substantial action needed for military families

General Jonathan Vance

Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright

This piece was first published in the Hill Times on May 31, 2017.

They have been called our “best kept secret.” Will the current government’s defence policy review and decades of tight-fisted budgets continue to relegate the centres that serve our nation’s military and veteran families to social and fiscal obscurity?

It has been more than 30 years since the current 32 Military Family Resource Centres (MFRCs) began to take shape. The initiative was born in opposition to the failure of Canada’s military bureaucracy to acknowledge the importance of military families, long labelled dependants.

Spouses who showed bravery that even the military had to begrudgingly admire, fought in the courts and political arena to have a say in how the military affects the lives of military families.
Arguably, spouses still have little voice on military matters affecting the lives of their families. MFRCs were not created, and arguably still do not operate, to address their needs. Although mandated to be “managed independently of the chain of command,” reality still hinders MFRCs’ arm’s length aspirations. As Dr. Deborah Harrison, Canada’s leading expert on the impact of military life and culture on families, points out in her 2016 book, Growing up in Armyville, MFRCs are still an “arm of the CAF [Canadian Armed Forces] and, as such, their overriding goal is the operational readiness and retention of CAF members.”

True, each MFRC operates as a charity, governed by a board that must include at least 51 per cent civilian spouses of military members.… Read the rest

It’s not easy to report wrongdoing in the federal government (part 2)

We pick up the story from where we last left off. In trying to report wrongdoing, the employee has already encountered many obstacles that discourage him/her from proceeding. These include a non-responsive management, an ethics adviser more interested in protecting a department and their own career, and the written information that is on the Public Sector Integrity Commission’s website. In an effort to report the corruption, he or she now is going to fill out the disclosure form that is required by the Integrity Commissioner before any discussion can take place.

Let’s see, I have to provide my name, job title, address, and telephone number. The form restates that the commissioner does not accept disclosures via email due to security and privacy concerns. What do they mean by this? Is an email from me sent to them not secure and private? I really don’t understand this reasoning or why I can’t email them from my own Gmail account.

Wait a minute; it states the majority of communication will be via regular mail or telephone. Now I understand, they can phone me but I can’t phone them. What a curious philosophy when I am the one who wants to help.

The next question asks who I’m represented by.Read the rest