Jeff Rose-Martland2013-05-22T00:32:46-04:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=jeff-rosemartlandCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jeff Rose-MartlandGood old fashioned elbow grease.Who's In Charge of This Country, Anyway?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33005522013-05-19T22:24:14-04:002013-05-19T23:57:02-04:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/along the same lines. We are wondering if Duffy -- and Wallin, and Brazeau, and others -- are part of a some plan to discredit the Senate to the point that all citizens demand its abolition.
Such a plot would certainly explain why Stephen Harper has appointed so many Senators, despite being adamantly opposed to the Senate. If all the wrong people were appointed and let loose, the resulting scandal could bring down the Red Chamber. And after all, Harper hasn't been able to do it any other way -- he's currently awaiting response from the Supreme Court as to whether the Commons can legally reform the Senate.
When he first introduced the motion in 2007, Harper said, "If the Senate cannot be elected, then it should be abolished. Those are the choices." And it certainly hasn't taken long for the Conservatives to jump on Duffy as an example of wide-spread corruption. Barely a day after the Senator announced his departure from caucus, Conservative MP Scott Armstrong echoed Harper's words: "I believe we need an elected Senate or it has to be abolished."
Appointments means no accountability, say the Conservatives, elected or abolished -- there is no third way.
Not true, actually. Senators can be recalled. The Commons can't do it, but neither can the Senate kick out MPs -- either would run counter to Canada's democratic structures -- but the Senate can police its own. The fact that it rarely does so is not an absence of power or will, but obscured by the fact that Senators usually resign.
Stephen Harper doesn't want to remind Canadians about this, but there's another way Senators can be booted from the Red Chamber: The Governor General. The GG can yank the appointment. In fact, the Governor General can remove anyone the GG swears in, including Supreme Court judges, Senators... and PMs.
And here we thought all that Governor-General-swearing-them-in-thing was just a quaint bit of formality.
Because of the way we have structured our democracy, the Governor General holds the ultimate power in Canada. Holds -- but rarely exercises. Any Governor General exercising such authority against the will of citizens risks serious civil unrest. BUT -- and this is a large and extremely crucial but -- BUT the Governor General can use such authority, especially if it reflects the mood of the citizens and defends democracy.
For example, Governor General David Johnston could decide that resigning from caucus isn't a fit punishment for Senator Mike Duffy; that it is undemocratic for a bought-and-paid-for Senator to be permitted to vote. GG Johnston might feel Duffy should be out of the Red Chamber altogether. He might also feel that Canadians are thinking the same thing. So, for example, GG Johnston could just sign some papers, give a speech to the Commons and the Senate, and *poof* Senator Mike Duffy goes back to being Mike-the-former-broadcastor-who-goes-fishing-on-PEI-every-summer.
That is the check on the Senate: The Governor General. He ensures accountability to the will of Canadian citizens. He defends democracy.
So, for another example, Governor General David Johnston might see something suspicious in the Prime Minister's chief of staff giving Senator Duffy $90-grand. Like the rest of Canadians, he may see that as an attempt to buy a Senator. The GG may also see it as funny that the Prime Minister doesn't know what his Chief is doing. He may think that a PM who can't supervise his Chief is not a good person to be running the nation, and, therefore, whether he knew or not, Harper should go.
Papers, speech, *poof* -- The Conservatives are leaderless. Or there's an election. Or both.
Because in Canada, the Government does not rule. Parliament doesn't dictate. The Governor General cannot act unsupported.
In Canada, it is we citizens who reign.
Let none forget.
]]>Why Are We in Such a Hurry to Forget Veterans?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22013572012-11-29T17:56:12-05:002013-01-29T05:12:02-05:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/Reveille have barely faded before carols are playing. Veterans' news stories disappear almost immediately and are replaced with tales of holiday consumer-orgies.
I'm not the only one to have noticed this. Dave Murphy also noticed: "As soon as Halloween is done the Christmas displays are up in all the stores, some even began playing Christmas music this year before Remembrance Day," said the founder of ThankASoldier.net. "They received numerous complaints and stopped but the media reported as people complained it was just 'Too Soon.'"
On the Thank a Soldier blog, Murphy wrote, "What happens from November 12 to November 10? Most people go back to their normal lives and don't think about our Veterans again until the week leading up to Remembrance Day." This conclusion led to the launch of a new campaign called A Call to Action. Thank A Soldier is calling on its 75,000+ members to not only remember veterans but to act to help them. Murphy is calling on citizens of Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia to contact their government officials and demand better support for veterans.
He is also calling on people to support two other Canadian organizations. Veterans Emergency Transition Services (V.E.T.S.) and Military Minds. V.E.T.S. is devoted to helping homeless and distressed veterans. Military Minds works to increase awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder and support veterans who suffer from it.
Veterans Among Us takes a different approach. Our Duty recognized that many veterans don't talk about their service; some only come out on Remembrance Day. One in 35 Canadians are veterans, yet civilians may not even know their friends and co-workers have served. Veterans Among Us tries to bridge the gap by calling on veterans to wear their medals or insignia on the 1st and 30th of November.
Two days, chosen deliberately to try and stave-off the holiday steam-roller. Because a long-weekend in November is not enough time to hear the issues faced by veterans, nevermind comprehending them. Here's just a sample of recent news items:
Did you know that in the past month there has been a new class-action suit filed by veterans against the government? Did you know that government is still dragging its heels on settling another one? Did you know that the RCMP veterans are also suing? Did you know that reservists get far less compensation when injured on active-duty?
Did you learn that Veterans Affairs breached the privacy of an advocate and his brother, at the same time? That a member of the appeal board had his file shared amongst his co-workers and the information used to bully him? That he was dropped from the Veterans Review and Appeal Board because of the scandal? That an investigation into the privacy breach of Sean Bruyea by the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman was ordered halted by the Minister?
Did you learn that we are not paying to bury our veterans with honour? Did you hear the cries for help from Sunnybrook? Did you know we have food banks dedicated exclusively to veterans? Did you know we have veterans living on the street? Did you see that some people don't recognize Canada's most important monument -- the Vimy Memorial -- from the back of the new $20 bill?
Or was all that hidden by the standard war movie and stock footage of one man's reminisces of storming Juno Beach? Are all those stories now buried under Black Friday and Cyber Monday and shopping frenzy and the Christmas Rush? Is your poppy covered up by the holiday card you got on the 12th?
Over the next month, while you are wishing for peace on earth, take some time and think about all those who have kept and defended our peace. They suffered for their service. They are suffering still.
We should not be so quick to forget them.]]>Is Veterans Affairs Canada Targeting This Family?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21693372012-11-23T14:35:16-05:002012-11-23T14:38:15-05:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/
Retired Corporal Dennis Manuge is the driving force behind the SISIP class action lawsuit over pension clawbacks. The suit is now under settlement negotiations and could cost government in excess of $600 million. Last year, Manuge revealed that, in 2009, the Minister of Veterans Affairs was briefed on private details of his medical conditions and finances.
Now, the former mechanic with the Royal Canadian Regiment says VAC also breached the privacy of his brother, Anthony.
Documents obtained by this reporter show that between 2008 and 2009, Veterans Affairs staff simultaneously accessed the brothers' records 10 different times. Those records included financial benefits, medical claims, service records and all of his dealings with VAC.
"Absolutely my privacy was violated," said Dennis Manuge, "The lists of accesses and the timings with me and my brother's... no such thing as a coincidence."
Retired Corporal Anthony Manuge is a former armoured vehicle driver from Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Records show no work being done on his VAC file between 2005 and 2010 -- he had no active claims and was not in receipt of benefits. Despite that, Anthony's records were accessed on a number of occasions in 2008 and 2009.
Access details reveal that Dennis' file was read at the same times, by the same individuals.
Those responsible for the breaches include a records clerk for the Ontario region as well as a number of individuals at VAC headquarters in Charlottetown, including a work-term student, clerical staff, and an area counsellor. Phone calls to Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney were not returned.
In addition to not receiving benefits at that time, Anthony notes, "I was living in Fort Frances, Ontario, so no one from Atlantic Region should have had any interest in me."
Anthony believes the violations were connected to the SISIP lawsuit: "In 2008-2009," he said, "the Government was trying to de-certify the class." Dennis had launched the lawsuit in 2007 and, in 2008, testified at Senate Hearings into the matter. (The Supreme Court of Canada would later re-instate the case as a class-action after it had been de-certified by the Federal Court of Appeal.)
Since 2008, both have had problems with their benefits. Dennis experienced delays in reimbursement of expenses and issues with applying for programs. "A case manager could not tell me if I was eligible under the New [Veterans] Charter, told me no one in VAC could answer my questions," Dennis said, "[But] five minutes after I had my new case manager, I was approved for the Rehab program and the Earnings Loss Benefit. Coincidence? My new case manager has changed our lives for the positive, I might add."
Asked if he has experienced difficulties obtaining his entitlements since the privacy violations, Anthony replied, "From the initial decision and the subsequent VRAB appeal hearing there [has been] negligence in the processing of my claim. Everything from not getting the years of service right -- even though I sent copies of all three of my certificates of service -- to libel in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The advocate presently assigned to my case cannot even meet a commitment to get documentation to me."
Dennis fears that revenge for his advocacy is being directed at Anthony: "With our last name he may never get a fair shake."
]]>Privacy Violation as a Weapon Against Veteranstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21437162012-11-16T09:07:05-05:002013-01-16T05:12:01-05:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/privacy violation has been in the news so much that most of us tune it out. Really, who cares that some employee looked at someone's file somewhere? Even if it's wrong, isn't that simply human nature, to be curious? Even if it was malicious, why should everyone care? And aren't media reports just making the violation worse, anyway?
Privacy Violation -- Snooping in files one has no legitimate need to see
Which is the problem with the phrase; it only applies to the act of looking and doesn't adequately describe the crime. Privacy violation applies to a bored employee who browsed files looking for friends and relatives as a way to fill time between coffee breaks. But the term equally applies to digging up dirt for malicious purposes. In both cases, the crime is the same: illegally accessing information. But the intentions are very different. And yet, media uses the same phrase, over and over, and we have stopped paying attention.
Compare privacy violation with excessive speed. We hear about speeding on our roads all the time. Some times, excessive speed means driving a little over the limit because it is rush hour. Other times, excessive speed means driving a souped-up street machine at 250kmph through residential streets. We mostly ignore the first reports, but we are outraged at the second.
Which is how we should be with privacy violations in federal departments.
Two years ago, Sean Bruyea came forward with proof that staff at the Minister of Veterans Affairs had violated his privacy. This wasn't any minor bored-clerk stuff. His medical and financial details had been circulated after he criticized the New Veterans Charter. In the minutes of a VAC conference call, an had said "it's time to take the gloves off here" a senior veterans official said -- like a statement from a mob-movie. And they did: Bruyea's benefits were modified and cancelled. VAC even tried to get him committed to a mental hospital.
Privacy Violation -- Bureaucrats using your private information to attack you.
Then there's Harold Leduc. Leduc was a member of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which reviews benefits claims. Leduc is also a veteran. Fellow board members decided they didn't like the way Leduc was doing his job. So they pulled his VAC file and passed it around. Leduc got a regular barrage of snide comments about his service and injuries. He was told that everyone was waiting for his nervous breakdown. He was reminded of the events that gave him PTSD. Leduc is now asking the Attorney General to investigate.
Privacy Violation -- Co-workers using your private records to bully you.
There are many, many more cases at Veterans Affairs. Those that have gone public have two things in common: they have all spoken out about VAC policy and they are all veterans. Some can prove the Minister was given their information. Some can only prove that Ministerial staff was reading their files. Some allege their benefits were affected after they spoke out; some claim their medical histories were used to discredit them. Some can show they were personally attacked; some can prove their families were also targeted.
Privacy Violation - The use of private information to intimidate or threaten individuals.
When Bruyea came forward, the Privacy Commissioner investigated...sort of. Ms Stoddart was only able to report on the facts of the violations and not on the reasons behind them. Had senior bureaucrats breeched his privacy? Yes. Why? She couldn't tell us. What was the information used for? She couldn't tell us. What action should be taken against the offenders? It wasn't her decision to make.
The same would be true for Harold Leduc.
Amid much fanfare and hyperbole, then-Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn announced that the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman would get to the bottom of things, that heads would roll, that charges would be laid if warranted.
A few months later, the new Minister, Steven Blaney, quietly ordered the inquiry halted. And a few months after that, some of the people implicated received big, fat, performance bonuses. Heads rolled, alright. They rolled all the way to the bank, still attached to their bodies.
Privacy Violation - A great way to advance your career.
Should we be concerned? You bet. Look at the victims. These are people who swore to defend Canada. We trusted them with our country and our lives. They were trained to dedication and determination. They were awarded medals for their service to us -- they have honours. And honour. And irreproachable reputations to carry them past these attacks.
We don't know what happened at Veterans Affairs. We also don't know if this is just Veterans Affairs. If a government department was willing to attack decorated veterans for expressing their opinion, then what chance would you or I have?
Privacy Violation -- A weapon used by government to stifle dissent.]]>Is Big Brother Threatening Our Charities?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21196132012-11-13T00:00:41-05:002013-01-12T05:12:01-05:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/Canadian Mennonite magazine revealed that it had been threatened by the government. A Canada Revenue audit team the magazine that it could lose its charitable status because of what it published.
CRA found some 2011 articles to be in violation of the Income Tax Act s149.1 (6.1 & 6.2), which forbids "the direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office." The offences? According to Mennonite Canada, criticizing two MPs for distancing themselves from their Mennonite heritage, an editorial warning against increasing militarism, and a feature about Jack Layton inspiring youth participation in politics.
All big no-nos, says CRA. Stop it or lose charitable status.
Charitable status takes a lot of work to obtain. It permits an organization to issue tax-deductible receipts for donations, which draws in big donors. Having it revoked would, in all likelihood, means the end of that organization.
This is no minor threat to Canadian Mennonite.
Nor is it a minor threat to the rest of us.
Consider what the magazine did: it was critical of two MPs; it discussed pacifism; and it echoed the national media regarding Layton's impact. Any big sins in there? Any gross misconduct? Anything worth stamping down so hard on a church publication?
It is hard to, unless one looks at it from a "Prince-John-how-dare-they" standpoint. Then you might see SPOKE-OUT-AGAINST-THE-GOVERNMENT! CRUSH THEM!
Is that what is happening? Tightening enforcement of these regulations was part of the 2012 Budget . Just a month after the budget passed, Canadian Mennonite got their warning letter, over articles published a year prior. Is the Income Tax Act being used to stifle criticism? It takes a pretty loose interpretation of the Act to interpret an article about Layton encouraging youth participation as political endorsement, especially since that topic was all over the media at the time.
The Income Tax Act charity rules were designed to prevent political groups from masquerading as charities; particularly to prevent political parties from using charities to further their cause. Like Grant Humes' campaign in Durham, ON, with durham4vets.org -- an apparent charity which is likely a front for a Liberal candidate. That would not get charitable status. That is what the rules were designed to prevent.
They were never intended to be used as a weapon against discourse.
Stories of like this about environmental groups being threatened by a PMO official began to emerge earlier this year, especially those opposed to the BC pipeline. They led to David Suzuki stepping down from his own foundation. Now religious institutions are being threatened. Look at the facts: a magazine that published 24 issues in 2011 was threatened over four articles. That's a big threat over a little content.
Who may be next?
Let's look at some possibilities.
Since it's the month of Remembrance, the Legion is a good place to start. It operates the Poppy Fund, among other fundraisers. It is also the biggest association of veterans, during a time when veterans are being very vocal against the government. Has the Legion been threatened? Will it be?
Would the Canadian Cancer Society lose its status for being against asbestos? Might First Nations Child And Family Caring Society Of Canada have charitable status yanked for defending aboriginal children? What about the Red Cross or Médecins Sans Frontières? What if they talk about foreign policy and Syria or Sudan? Not too long ago, Amnesty International was in a well-publicized spat with Jason Kenney. Could that land them on the chopping block?
What about Children's Wish Foundation? CWF has a variety of fundraising initiative across Canada, many of which involve celebrities. Would CWF cease to be a charity if they host a musician who is against cuts to arts funding? Will a dying child's wish be denied because a participant spoke out against government?
Where does this end?
Where is this taking Canada? Will we be a nation without dissent, without criticism, without discourse? A nation where even the most well-meaning and well-respected charities must keep silent on everything or risk the wrath of government?]]>The Dire Consequence of Mistreating Our Veteranstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20924462012-11-10T09:41:47-05:002013-01-10T05:12:01-05:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/
If you ask that question, you will likely be the recipient of a good telling-off by those who think anyone who serves is a hero. However, some feel that blind hero-worship is both off-putting and non-responsive. Perhaps some are heroes, but are they all? And are they really defending our freedom? And, if so, then so what? Is it not like any other job? They didn't have to enlist. They knew what they were signing up for. Why should we care?
So lets strip away all talk of patriotism and freedom and democracy and stick to something we can all understand. Lets examine the question using enlightened self interest: what do our soldiers and Mounties do for us?
The RCMP provide safety and security. They patrol in dark corners and remote locations, applying the rule of law. Lesser known, but just as significant, are the search-and-rescue and safety patrols they conduct.
In a blizzard, on a highway, you will often find one of the Mounted hard at work, ensuring motorists don't ignore the Road Closed Sign and drive into danger. The RCMP use ground patrols and helicopters to find missing people. They pull victims from frozen lakes and carry them out of wilderness. They rush into danger to save people from harm.
The Forces perform similar tasks here in Canada, but on a bigger scale. The Canadian Forces, by dint of numbers and resources, can rescue entire cities from trouble. They hold back the floods in Winnipeg. They clear snow from blocked streets in Toronto. They deliver supplies and heat during ice-storms in Quebec and Nova Scotia. They fight forest fires in BC and re-build hurricane-destroyed roads in Newfoundland. They jump out of helicopters into the Arctic sea and North Atlantic to save sailors from drowning. They get food and medical supplies to every corner of the country, whenever people are in trouble.
But what makes them different? We have other police, firefighters, first-responders. Why do we need the Forces and RCMP? Couldn't we get rid of them; download the work to the others?
BLOG CONTINUES BELOW SLIDESHOW
We could, sure. But in order to make it work, these other groups would have to assume the same employment condition: unlimited liability. Unlimited Liability refers to the agreement one makes upon enlistment. One agrees to serve, to obey instructions, without regard to personal safety. This means that, no matter how dangerous the circumstance, you run in. Charge across that mine field? No problem. Jump 30' from a helicopter to the frigid ocean? You got it. Snowshoe through a blizzard to bring medicine to a stormbound community, despite the - 109 wind-chill? Sure thing.
The RCMP and Forces serve with the understanding, not that they might be injured, but that they will be injured. They expect to be a broken wreck by the time their enlistment is up, and just as likely, well before. They accept that role because they know that their sacrifice often means lives are saved. They understand that, in dangerous situations, someone has to get in and do what is needed. And that these jobs can only be done effectively by those who have been trained to disregard personal safety.
Even if we disbanded the Forces and Mounted, the work that they do and the ways it must be done will remain. Disbanding the RCMP and Forces would require us to find replacements who would serve under the same exact terms. The only thing downloading services would accomplish would be changing the name of the operators.
Which brings us to our treatment of veterans.
Given the principle of unlimited liability, we cannot escape our duty to those that serve. They agree to take personal damage up to, and including, giving their lives in service to us all. Therefore, it follows that we all have unlimited responsibility to look after for those who serve when those damages occur.
A responsibility which we have been evading for decades. Perhaps a century.
The myriad ways we have found to duck out cannot be listed here. But that list has been growing since 2006, when the New Veterans Charter put limits on the pain-and.-suffering award. Government continues to find ways to short-change veterans: fighting them in court, cutting service delivery, even violating their privacy to gain an upper hand. We keep putting limits on our responsibility after the individual has already given their body and mind for us.
Not only is this grotesquely unfair, it is also really bad for our future. If you ask around, you will find that military and police services are still largely family businesses -- the children of members will likely enlist themselves. Our recruitment forecasts count on that. So what happens when we short-change the veterans?
Veterans that are parents and relatives will tell their children not to enlist, that there is no honour is serving such a callous and uncaring nation. Other veterans will talk to their friends about what happened, about how they sacrificed for their country and their county tossed them away like trash. A massive word-of-mouth campaign. A veteran's story is precious to anyone considering joining up. As these horror stories get out, recruit may change their minds about signing up with the Mounties or Forces.
This is already happening. Some veterans are telling their kids to do anything -- be plumbers, work fast-food, sweep streets -- anything other than put their lives on the line for us. Every failure of benefits or inappropriate incident at Veterans Affairs pushes those future recruits further away.
And those other forces? The ones you think would replace the RCMP and military? They have been watching as well. They know what we are doing to our veterans. I doubt they would be quick to leap into the breech.
If we don't start fixing the issues at Veterans Affairs, if we don't start providing proper and timely benefits to our veterans, then one day soon, we may not have a national police force or a military. We won't have anyone to save us, to help us, to keep us from danger. We will be left to our own devices.
---
Next week: So what if veterans are angry?]]>Should November Be a Month for Remembering Moustaches?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20783542012-11-06T08:53:33-05:002013-01-06T05:12:01-05:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/Veterans Among Us was a success. Participation was a little low -- this is only the second year of the campaign -- but those veterans who did wear their medals on November 1 had a good day. They got a lot of "Thank-you for serving" and some "I didn't know you were a veteran" and some "Do you mind if I look at your medals?" Great interaction, exactly what the campaign was designed for.
But it wasn't all rosy. The were a few you-shouldn't-be-proud-you-warmonger remarks from that part of the populace who have yet to figure out that it is we citizens who wage war, not the military. The military has no say in the matter.
The most common negative comment was "What's the matter? Isn't Remembrance Day enough for you?" I even got a variation of that myself, although I'm not a veteran. The promotional material for Veterans Among Us reads, in part, "to mark the Month of Remembrance," So I was questioned on that: why a month?
Answer #1 -- I'm not declaring a month, I'm saying two days: at the beginning and end.
Answer #2 -- Mostly "Month of Remembrance" comes from television programming. Some channels turn their programming to military history and veterans' stories during November. They call it the "Month of Remembrance."
Answer #3 -- Why not a month?
Let's explore #3. There will be no flag waving or hero-talk. his is a straight-forward analysis. And I'm going to pick on the other current awareness campaign: Movember.
I'm not knocking Movember. It is an excellent campaign, both for fundraising and awareness. I don't even have a problem with the timing. I have absolutely nothing against Movember. I'm using it for comparison purposes because Movember and Remembrance both happen during the same month and are both about awareness.
Last week, Movember enjoyed a lot more media coverage than veterans. There were perhaps half-a-dozen significant news items regarding veterans -- two of which related to stolen poppy cans. But there were hundreds, if not thousands of reports on Movember. Probably every male MP got a story and most of their provincial counterparts. Plus celebrities, the prostate cancer groups, the Canadian cancer society -- massive coverage. Based on media reports, Movember must be far more important than remembrance; prostate cancer must affect more Canadians than veterans issues.
Let's look at the numbers:
According to the Canadian Cancer Society's most recent statistics: "In 2007, there were approximately 748,897 Canadians who had been diagnosed with cancer in the previous 10 years. This represents about 2.3 per cent of the Canadian population or 1 out of every 44 Canadians."
Prostate cancer represents 27 per cent of new cancer cases in 2012 and about 10 per cent of cancer deaths. The overall incidence of prostate cancer in the population is 121 per 100,000 people. Or about 42,500 people.
Crunching the numbers a bit more (using 35 million for the population of Canada, in case you are wondering): 795,000 or 1 in 44 Canadians are affected by cancer; 215,000 or 1 in 166 are affected by prostate cancer over 10 years; there will be 42,500 new patients this year.
Undoubtedly, this is a big issue; one deserving of a major awareness campaign. And I don't begrudge them the four weeks duration, since it takes that long for some men to grow a moustache.
Now, let's take a look at veterans:
According to population estimates from Veterans Affairs, National Defence, RCMP, and Public Safety, there are approximately 1-million people who have served or are serving in the Canadian Forces and RCMP.
This means that 1 in 35 Canadians is a veteran.
Now think about the media coverage. Movember is getting massive coverage. Veterans? A pittance by comparison. Number of Canadians affected by prostate cancer: 1/166. By cancer, total: 1/44. By being a veteran: 1/35. Numerically, veterans should be receiving 4.5 times the amount of coverage as prostate cancer. And about the same amount of coverage as cancer.
But they don't.
"Isn't one day enough for you?"
No. Not by the numbers. Not by comparison to other awareness campaigns.
And certainly not if that one day is dedicated to the dead. Remembrance, remember? Paying tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice? The reason you see a lot of veterans on Remembrance Day is because they knew the fallen or are like them. Asking veterans to celebrate their service on Remembrance Day is like asking people to do the chicken-dance at a funeral.
Or to celebrate surviving cancer by drinking nuclear waste. So, no, one day is not enough to dedicate to veterans.
"Why a Month of Remembrance?"
Why not? The RCMP and Canadian Forces make, perhaps, the biggest contributions to our country of any single group. They protect us all, at home and abroad. They extract us from dangerous situations. They rescue entire communities from disaster. They rebuild those communities afterwards. They operate in the worst conditions to bring food, water, medical supplies to those who are stranded. They do whatever we citizens ask, knowing they will eventually be injured or killed in the process. And they do it with low pay and miserly benefits. Benefits they have to fight for, with appeals and lawsuits and hunger-strikes and protests.
In recognition, we begrudgingly give them a day to mark their service. We expect them to celebrate at the same time as remembering the dead. Most of us can't be bothered to go to the services. In three provinces, Remembrance Day isn't a holiday; we don't even respect veterans' contributions enough to take a day off work. But when we do, we use the day to sell liquor or have a makeout party.
That's how we honour Canada's veterans: put on a poppy, pay lip-service to the dead, and ignore the living. We know 4.5 times as many veterans as prostate cancer victims. Yet November is now dedicated to facial hair, while only the dead veterans get acknowledged, and just for one day. And mostly by themselves.
Why a month of Remembrance? Because, maybe, perhaps, if we set aside 30 days, then maybe, perhaps, there might be a small chance that citizens will actually think about the veterans that have served us all.]]>The Myths We Believe About Canadian Veteranstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.20400492012-10-31T12:12:17-04:002012-12-31T05:12:01-05:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/awareness campaign. There are almost a million current and former members of the Canadian Forces and RCMP; one in 35 Canadians has served our national interests. Which means that few Canadians don't know someone who has served. So everyone should be knowledgeable about veterans and the issues they face.
Yet the number one comment I hear from the veteran's community is that civilians either don't know what is happening to them or, worse, don't care. I have to admit, I was in that position myself until two years ago. Since then, I've spent a fair amount of time trying to explain the hows and whys of that apathy, both to myself and to the veterans I serve. Here is what I have concluded.
Citizens are not paying attention. Because people, on the whole, only pay attention to news that directly affects them. Which means that, unless a loved one is a veteran, most people won't really notice those news items. Most people don't know much about the lawsuits and ill-treatment by Veterans Affairs Canada. Not many know details about the New Veterans Charter or cuts to VAC. And few -- including this advocate -- understand the complex issues related to pension clawbacks. Understanding such things takes work. And unless an issue directly impacts our life, we aren't inclined to make the effort.
There's also a huge assumption at the heart of citizen ignorance: we assume that those who suffer through serving us will be looked after. Because why wouldn't they be? If we can afford to hire people to be peacekeepers and peacemakers and peace officers, then surely we can afford to look after them if they get hurt, right? And because we all pay our taxes, and since no government has ever said "we can't afford veterans," then it is safe to assume veterans are cared for.
Apparently not. While we've all been trusting veterans' care to government, governments have been finding a multitude of ways not to provide for them. By denying claims. By clawing back pensions and injury awards. By reducing pain-and-suffering awards to paltry amounts. By not treating all veterans as equal. By delaying processing and stalling on appeals and dragging its heels on payouts. By slashing the staff and centres which assist veterans. All the time telling us that they care about veterans.
But probably the number one reason for citizen apathy is simple lack of awareness. Not a lack of awareness of the issues; a lack of awareness of veterans themselves.
A million veterans. One in 35 people. How many do you know?
See? Exactly my point.
When we hear the word "veteran," the image that leaps to mind is of a wizened old man in a wheelchair, tartan blanket over his lap, perhaps missing limbs, being pushed towards a cenotaph on Remembrance Day. We think of bonnets and berets and medals on blazers. We see a man who survived mustard gas and rats in the Somme. Or who stormed Juno Beach. Maybe, if we are particularly aware, we think of a guy who fought over the 38th Parallel in Korea.
But the Great War veterans have all passed on. The World War II veterans are passing. Korea was 60 years ago. (And, in all honesty, when we think of Korea, don't we mostly think of M*A*S*H?)
When we think "veteran," we certainly don't think of Canadian troops in Cyprus. Although we should; they were there long enough. We don't think about Mounties in Côte d'Ivoire or the DRC or The West Bank or Sudan. What comes to mind isn't DEW line stations or the October Crisis or West German border crossings. It isn't search and rescue, Winnipeg floods, Quebec ice storms, or BC forest fires. It isn't the Gulf War or Somalia or the Balkans or Haiti. It MIGHT be Afghanistan. But it isn't Rwanda. Or Swiss Air 111. Or Eritrea. Or East Timor.
We also don't think of women sailors or First Nations soldiers or black airmen or Asian Mounties...or any minorities. We think of old white men in wheelchairs, wearing poppies on Remembrance Day.
To be fair, though, veterans themselves often suffer from the same tunnel vision as the rest of us. And it doesn't help that Veterans Affairs separates veterans into over 20 different categories.
One thing is absolutely certain: we all need to change what we think of when we hear "veteran." We need to make that image match reality. The reality of one in 35.
We all know a veteran; we just don't know it. But think about how much things change when the word has a familiar face. Suddenly, all those news items are not about some anonymous old man. Now, it is your work colleaugue who is fighting for hearing aids. It's the waitress at the coffee shop who has PTSD from pulling bodies out of the North Atlantic. It's your study-partner who was humiliated at that appeal board hearing. It's your biker buddy who's homeless because his pension is too small to rent a place to live.
It's the receptionist who had her psych records shared around the Minister's office. It's your neighbour who is dying of unexplained illness and rare cancers after being exposed to depleted uranium. It's your boss, who sought out snipers in a desert while wearing forest camoflage and carrying half his weight in equipment, and who has been denied a pension for a damaged back.
When "veteran" has a face and a name and a relationship with you, the news is much more important. Now we care. Now we are paying attention.
Which is why we need an awareness campaign. We need to be aware of the veterans among us.
Veterans Among Us is a nationwide awareness campaign which takes place on November 1st and 30th. It calls on Canada's veterans to wear their medals or insignia as they go about their day. For more information, check out the event here.]]>Happy Father's Day, Mr. Momtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16031202012-06-16T22:10:41-04:002012-08-16T05:12:24-04:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/
If you are in a similar situation, don't let popular myths sway you. Your child doesn't care if you are male or female, so long as you are there to provide food and comfort and protection. Everything else is just learning and, believe me guys, women don't have some secret users-manual for children. Just like us, women start off in the dark and learn as they go, on their own and from family and friends.
Mothers, however, have to cope with something we don't: expectations. Because of the myth, women are expected to know everything from diaper changing to saving for university from the moment they conceive. Men aren't expected to know anything. In fact, men, currently, are popularly held to be completely incompetents with kids. If a mother is chasing her toddler around in the supermarket, she'll get a whole lot of bad looks. If a father is being taunted by his two-year-old daughter from the top of an open staircase, everyone chuckles.
Dads get incessant advice from well-intentioned women. In that same grocery store, I rounded a corner with my son wailing and was instantly descended upon by The Helpful Woman. She advised, quite forcefully, that he was tired. I countered that he was mad that I had just taken away the butcher's knife he'd pulled off the shelf. She went away.
My son is now six. I do the school runs. I do much of the cooking. My personal failings at housework have nothing to do with my gender.
It's Doctor Dad in this house -- I tend the ill, dress the scraps, and apply the kisses as required. Until recently, I carried the essential caregiver item: the purse. Call it a knapsack, kitbag, whatever you want -- a friend of mine went so far as to buy a gas mask pouch -- it's all still the same thing: a child-maintenance kit. Tissues, Band-Aids, spare drinks, emergency rations, diapers, toys, books, spare clothes... Some women keep their makeup in it as well. I kept my media player in mine in case in needed Ozzy's screaming to drown out more localized noise.
I haven't spent 100 per cent of my time locked onto my son like some parental cruise missile, either. I've worked. I've written. I've built playhouses and swing sets, done home maintenance, and even managed squeeze in video games and the odd party.
And one morning recently, when I was out of town for a job, and my wife was getting him ready for school, my son burst into tears and declared that he wanted me. Wife asked, "Are you upset because I'm doing things different from the way Dad does?"
"No," he wailed, "I want him because I love him and miss him."
Which trumps any comment ever directed at my manliness.]]>Who Cares About Veterans? Not Minister Blaneytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15671812012-06-04T15:19:57-04:002012-08-04T05:12:12-04:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/
That's something that Minister Blaney needs reminding of.
In June 2011, shortly after Blaney was appointed minister, a veteran of the Royal 22nd Regiment took a seat in front of the national headquarters of Veterans Affairs. Cpl Fabien Melanson had stopped eating, protesting years of neglect by VAC. True to form, VAC ignored the hunger-striking veteran for 10 days. When contact was finally made, it was in the form of an Assistant Deputy Minister.
The issue involved VAC -- Melanson is a veteran, and a hunger-strike is definitely an affair. But the Minister, it seems, felt no responsibility. He did not speak to the veteran. And he still hasn't.
Melanson's situation is -- one hopes -- unique. For five consecutive months starting in September 2004, Melanson's disability pension went to the wrong bank account. The lack of income ruined the veteran's finances, his house and his mental health.
The VAC paid the back-pension and, after two years, eventually coughed up the related bank fees. As for the damages the deprivation caused, VAC denied all responsibility. It took seven years and three hunger strikes for VAC to provide a letter admitting their mistake.
The letter admits to the missing pension, that the cause was an administrative error, and that Fabien suffered because of it. But Melanson was told that Veterans Affairs has "no mechanism" for making reparations.
This is the point where the minister is supposed to step in. Ministers have the ability to redress issues which fall outside of policy; it's one of the reasons that we have ministers. When it takes executive authority to fix something, you need to have an executive ready to do the job.
Blaney is not doing it.
Rightfully, the Minister should have spoke with the veteran during the hunger strike, to see that his problem was solved. Certainly the minister should have followed up on VAC's letter and provide the missing mechanism.
Blaney didn't do that either.
He did not attempt to seek out the veteran. When Melanson's advocate began contacting the Ministry, Blaney ignored him as well.
It's a simple issue: VAC deprived the veteran of his income for almost five months. Their error should have been fixed when Melanson first reported it and it wasn't. The lack of income caused a cascading series of events which ruined the Corporal's house and fuelled his suicide attempt. VAC admits the error was their fault and they admit Melanson suffered because of it. The Minister Responsible for Veterans Affairs can issue payment to cover the damages. Problem solved, duty executed, wrong righted -- next, please.
Steven Blaney hasn't done it.
For a full year, attempts have been made to contact the minister, to arrange a settlement so that Cpl Fabien Melanson of the Royal 22nd Regiment, veteran of Croatia and Bosnia, could repair his home and resume the life that has been on hold for eight years. Every contact attempt has been ignored.
Well, except for the aide that returned a call once, months ago, to say they were looking into it.
As the anniversary of the hunger strike approached, Melanson's situation grew increasingly desperate. His house and property were about to be repossessed if he couldn't provide a way to fix the house. Frantic messages were sent to the Ministry -- by email, phone, fax, other MPs, by Senators, through the media -- all saying the same thing: make this right. Do your duty. Before the end of the month, before it is too late, wield your mighty power, oh minister of the people, and fix this problem created by your department!
Or at least, give us a call, eh?
Blaney kept shut. Nada. Not a word. Not so much as a misspelled text message from an intern.
Not because someone hit the wrong button in 2004. Not because of circumstances beyond VAC's control. No, Melanson loses his property because the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not being responsible.
Why should Blaney resign?
Because when he stands in the Commons, he affirms that he cares about all of Canada's veterans. He doesn't care about this one. He won't speak to him. He won't even talk about him. He won't use his authority to correct the trouble VAC caused.
In the Canadian Forces, willful neglect of one's duties can result in punishments from fines to jail time. Under certain conditions, it could get one imprisoned for life. Neglect of duty is something taken very seriously by Canada's veterans.
Minister Blaney has a duty to care for Cpl Melanson. He has a responsibility to know what his Department did to Melanson. He has an obligation to address that wrong. And, as a servant of the people, he is required to speak to any citizen who asks that of him.
Steven Blaney has willfully neglected all of these duties. If he will not rectify that, then he should resign.]]>Soldiers Give Up Their Rights So They Can Risk Their Livestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15082352012-05-12T01:21:15-04:002012-07-11T05:12:13-04:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/
Take the case of Cpl. Steve Stoesz.
Last week, Cpl. Stoesz spoke out about National Defence's planned cuts to military health care. DND plans to cut 25 jobs from a special unit that deals with post-traumatic stress disorder, and soldier suicide. The good corporal is justifiably worried about the impact those cuts will have. He fears his fellow soldiers will be left without the mental health support they need.
Someone raising concerns over job cuts has been a daily news item since the budget was announced. But this is a very different affair; Stoesz could go to jail for having voiced his opinion.
Canadian citizens may be shocked to learn that the Canadian Forces do not have the same Charter Rights as the rest of us. They give up those rights when they enlist.
In particular, they do not have freedom of opinion and expression. Both the National Defence Act (S. 129) and the Queen's Regulations and Orders (103.60)prohibit members from criticizing the Department of National Defence or the Government of Canada. It is considered Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline.
In most cases, such a law makes sense for the military. It is used to suppress mutiny and rebellion. As citizens, we don't want our troops even discussing such things. If a soldier does start to speak out against his commanders or against our government, we need to be able to take swift and decisive action against that person. One thing that is required of a soldier, above all else, is loyalty. Unquestioning loyalty. Absolute loyalty.
Which is why Stoesz is in trouble for criticizing his betters. He wasn't 100% loyal to the idea of soldiers killing themselves because the books need to be balanced, and he said so.
Now he's in even more trouble. After his first interview, Cpl. Steve Stoesz was ordered to keep his trap shut. Instead, the corporal went on national TV and told everyone; not just his opinion of the cuts, but also about the gag order. This means he is open to even more charges, including Disobeying a Lawful Command -- which, by the way, is punishable by up to life imprisonment.
Imagine that: you fight and are injured for your country, and you wind up in prison for the rest of your life because you said you didn't like the budget.
Now you and I both know that he's not likely to get that. That punishment is probably reserved for disobeying orders in combat. But nonetheless, Stoesz is in serious trouble: those are just two of many charges he could face.
Stoesz says he doesn't care, that this is too important an issue to be quiet about. He won't shut-up-and-soldier. He was willing to die in Afghanista,n and the war over veteran benefits is far more important.
Which, I think, gets right to the heart of the matter.
There is a subtext to national service. Those who serve agree to give up their rights because that is essential to doing the job. In exchange, they rely on every superior rank -- including citizens -- to see that they are treated fairly and justly, to ensure that they are cared for when they need it. They exchange rights for trust. When we betray that trust, we cannot demand to withhold rights as well.
As for the soldier, ask yourself this:
What is worse for military discipline? Steve Stoesz talking on the news? Or the Conservatives gutting mental health support to the troops?]]>How a Typo Ruined a Veteran's Lifetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14443172012-04-23T11:21:35-04:002012-06-23T05:12:02-04:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/Broken Soldiers, a documentary about the ongoing battles between Canada's veterans and the department charged with their care. In the film, Dale Stevens caught up with Fabien Melanson as he was starving himself at Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) headquarters last June.
In 2004, a VAC typo sent Melanson's pension into somebody else's bank account. The lack of money brought house renovations to a halt, leaving Melanson's Acadian home open to the elements in November. By the time his money arrived, the house -- and Melanson's credit -- had suffered significant damage. The building is uninhabitable and Melanson was homeless.
At the time of his hunger strike, Melanson was fighting to get VAC to acknowledge the damage it caused and to fix his home. Despite media coverage, Veterans Affairs would wait to acknowledge Melanson's presence. Perhaps they thought he would give up. Maybe they plotted to settle him again with vague promises, just as they had during his March hunger strike.
Melanson went 11 days without food. VAC eventually gave him a letter finally admitting the error was their fault. As for fixing his house, it was too-bad-so-sad. The Deputy Minister, Suzanne Tining, told him that VAC "has no mechanism" to pay for the fallout from their error.
Broken Soldiers ends with the message "Fabien continues to struggle with PTSD." That's not all he continues to struggle with. Melanson is still trying to save his house.
The letter from VAC didn't change a thing. It didn't put on a roof or siding, repair water damage or upgrade the wiring. It didn't close in the structure or put in a furnace. Melanson's 160-year-old family legacy farmhouse is still uninhabitable -- the casualty of a clerical miss key.
Veterans' Affairs won't take responsibility for the problem. They deprived a man of his rightful income for months, but, when it comes to the impact, VAC is as uncaring as a hit-and-run driver.
Prior to his hunger strike, I joined Melanson in his battle because his story is both sad and infuriating. Sad that anyone should be in his situation. Infuriating that the system charged with his care should be so uncaring. Since June, I have served as Melanson's advocate. I believe that he should have at least one citizen on his side.
I've sought out lawyers, hoping to find one who would take Melanson's case for free. The response from the legal community has been dramatically underwhelming. Most of my inquiries went unanswered. Those which did deign to reply insisted on profiting from this impoverished veteran. So much for legal ethics. Pro bono publico has clearly become pro bonus meum.
The Veterans' Affairs Minister, Steven Blaney, has the authority to order a compensation payment and fix this mess. I have attempted to contact the Minister Blaney on behalf of Melanson. Several emails, a fax, and a phone call later and I have yet to reach him.
An aide has assured me that they are looking into it -- the same promise given Melanson on hunger strike number one and since 2005. I shouldn't be surprised. It took seven years and two hunger strikes to get VAC to acknowledge they made a mistake. Expecting action during the past 10 months is probably being naively optimistic on my part.
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, the house is still rotting away. Fundraising has been slow. Veterans are doing what they can to help one of their own, but most veterans don't have spare cash. I received not one acknowledgement from the NB churches I contacted; likewise from most of the charitable organizations. Civilian response has been practically non-existent. Even the patriotic celebrity who promised to hold a fundraiser has disappeared without a word.
As for the broken soldier: owing to VAC's recent financial boost for low-income veterans, as of this month, Melanson now occupies a sparsely-furnished rented room. He sleeps on an old army cot because he cannot afford a mattress. Most of his income is going towards back payments on his mortgage. The mortgage on the house he can't live in.
Because of a typo.]]>Harper, Get Over Your Commitment Issues to Veteranstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14312922012-04-17T17:16:22-04:002012-06-17T05:12:01-04:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/
That truism is so often repeated that we tend to forget its value. But whenever we begin to neglect that observation, someone comes along to remind us just how significant that statement is.
Take, as an example, the Harper government and their oft-cited commitment to veterans.
Actually, that's not accurate. It isn't "oft-cited" -- that implies there is a commitment, which many people reference. It should read "oft-repeated" -- which gives a much clearer description of what actually happens. For years, any Conservative MP, addressing the House in relation to veteran matters, has opened with something like "Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is committed to Canada's veterans."
Presumably, some political tactician thinks that citizens will nod OK at that point and go back to sleep, thus freeing the Harper government of all responsibility. Commitment stated; end of story. Or perhaps they are playing word games by using "commit" in a general sense, stating their emotional attachment. Or perhaps they are indicating that they feel institutionalized.
The Conservatives cannot use "commitment" in the generally-accepted governmental meaning. They can not possibly be referencing a sense of dedication and obligation. If so, they have a very strange way of demonstrating their commitment to Canada's veterans.
Budget 2012 says that Veterans Affairs will continue to make entitlements available "in the shortest possible time." Which should prove to be an interesting exercise, as the government has just cut 261 employees from the Department. That's on top of the 550 jobs already going, making for a workforce reduction of 17.5 per cent.
Faster service with 20 per cent less staff -- fewer if you count all the employees that will be on leave because of overwork. That's a magic trick Doug Henning would have been proud of. Or perhaps it's more of an illusion, in keeping with the Conservative repertoire of commitment.
Which leads me to another meaning of "commitment" -- a funeral.
Government is showing its commitment to veterans by cutting veterans' commitments.
That only looks confusing.
Well, the sentence only looks confusing. The reality is actually confusing. See if you can follow along.
In 1909, the Last Post Fund was established to ensure that Canada's veterans were buried with dignity. Even if they die in poverty and debt, the Last Post Fund is there to give a veteran a proper send off, using money from Veterans Affairs.
Supposedly.
In reality, the Fund has had problems. Three years ago, on the Fund's 100th anniversary, then Veterans' Ombudsman Colonel Pat Stogran released a report urging Veterans Affairs to "act quickly to bring about improvements to the Funeral and Burial Program." The Fund didn't have enough funds and wasn't available to all veterans. Over a year ago, the Royal Canadian Legion was calling for more money for the Fund. Last June, current Ombudsman Guy Parent noted that the Conservatives "seem to think it would be better spent on the living."
That might be a plausibility, if they were actually spending the money on the living. But that's not the case. Because, in addition to cutting Veterans Affairs, Government just halved the operating budget of The Last Post Fund as well.
When it comes to showing its commitment to Canada's veterans, the Conservatives have just put the final nail in the coffin.
Well, half a nail.
]]>The Survey Rigged for Budget Cutstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13824482012-03-27T12:01:10-04:002012-05-27T05:12:02-04:00Jeff Rose-Martlandhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-rosemartland/10 per cent of Veterans' Affairs' budget but he says veterans will be unaffected. That doesn't make sense, unless you know government has the 2010 National Client Survey in its planning pocket. It says that veterans are very pleased with Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC). Logically, you could trim the edge off "very pleased" and still have satisfied people.
Provided the survey is accurate.
So, in 2010, were veterans satisfied with Veterans Affairs Canada?
Depends on who you ask.
That July, this average civilian watched amazed as then-Veterans' Ombudsman Colonel Pat Stogran held a press conference. The Colonel took the stage with Dennis Manuge and the now-departed Brian Dyck. During the following month, I read literally thousands of comments from veterans who were upset, disillusioned, and above all angry. I learned about disputes over everything from hearing aids to coverage for depleted uranium or Agent Orange exposure.
I learned of ridiculously long processing times and of the routine need for court battles. I got news of how VAC officials used private medical information to discredit Sean Bruyea and other veterans' advocates, or worse, to gain retribution by cutting their benefits.
Meanwhile, back at Veterans' Affairs, data was being tabulated for the 2010 Veterans' Affairs National Client Survey. Results would be presented to Treasury Board in the fall, as proof of VAC's successes and failures. Survey results would be critical to future planning.
The NCS has some interesting data. Like which method veterans prefer for contacting VAC (telephone). Like how many close friends and relatives a veteran has (8.3). Like how a minority of clients have trouble taking part in activities because of physical and/or emotional problems.
Wait...a minority???
Now, I know members of the Canadian Forces and RCMP are tough, but they are not demigods. If they are receiving disability benefits then, ipso facto, they have disabilities and, hence, trouble taking part in activities.
It seems there is a flaw in the survey.
Actually, it seems there are many flaws in the survey.
In fact, it turns out the survey is worthless.
Here's why: The survey was 30 minutes long. It asks some questions again, just in case you changed your mind. It asked about Remembrance programs, which you don't need to be a VAC client to access.
And, despite government regulations, it doesn't account for people who refused the survey.
Imagine this: You came back from "peacekeeping" in the 90s. In Bosnia, you busted your back and lost part of your hearing. In Croatia, you lost your sanity, your left foot, and the rest of your hearing when you drove over a mine.
Since then, you have been fighting for benefits. VAC paid for your foot but they can't comprehend how not having that foot impacts your back. They don't accept your wife's word that you wake up screaming nightly -- she's your wife and would lie for you. VAC won't pay for your hearing aids. According to them, your ears were bad before the blast, so you can't blame the landmine. A member of the appeal board once suggested you should have turned down your walkman.
That's your life. Your scream all night in your dreams, and all day on the phone about your benefits. Then, one evening, your phone rings. It's Veterans' Affairs. They want to know how satisfied you are with them...
And that's where the National Client Survey fails massively: it doesn't account for clients who refused the survey. All the results in the NCS are based on the 29 per cent of clients who had half an hour to spare, and were not so angry with VAC that they pitched the phone across the room.
The final result? The National Client Survey says the amount of veterans and families who are satisfied with their programs and benefits is... (drum roll) -- 80 per cent!
Really? Eighty per cent of veterans were satisfied in 2010?
Because on November 6 that year, right across Canada and for the first time in our history, there were rallies protesting problems with Veterans Affairs, specifically with services and benefits. The people at those rallies? Angry veterans. A whole lot of angry veterans. I ought to know; I was standing there surrounded by them.
The National Client Survey was accepted by Treasury Board. Perhaps Harper is thinking that his cuts will mean a one per cent drop in satisfaction. Which is not a big deal, if that's the difference between 80 and 79 per cent. But if it brings 50 to 49 per cent, then that is failure. Undoubtedly, the survey is being used to plan these cuts.
This deeply-flawed, non-compliant-with-government-standards, doesn't-make-any-sense- on- its-face, survey.
You can judge the NCS for yourself. A report outlining its failures is available at Our Duty.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this post stated that Sean Bruyea was on stage for the 27 July press conference. This was not the case. ]]>
