- Reaction score
- 369
- Points
- 910
http://www.veteranvoice.info/archive/periodicals/Periodical_11Nov_2.htm
Veteran's Voice is an informative website.
The following is his take of the October meetings with VAC.
Keep On Advocating
Last week, representatives of VeteranVoice and other Veterans organisations participated in two meetings in Ottawa. The first was held on 24 October and was organised by VAC. The minister, the Honourable Steven Blaney, opened the meeting and then spent the day meeting with the representatives, while the deputy minister, Suzanne Tining, chaired the eight hour main session.
The second meeting was organised by the Royal Canadian Legion (RCL) and was held on 29 October in the national headquarters of the RCL. This was a shorter meeting, scheduled for five hours and covered related topics. Both meetings were very interesting. Both demonstrated that there is many similarities among the groups in terms of concerns and a determination to improve the provisions of services to the Veterans Community. There may be differences in terminology and priorities, but there is unity of purpose. We need to keep advocating on behalf of the Veterans Community.
The first meeting was preceded by an informal gathering scheduled by Don Leonardo,of Veterans of Canada. He solicited support for a public inquiry similar to the Woods Committee of the mid-1960's. The panel considered 148 recommendations and most were implemented within two years of the final report from Judge Mervyn Woods. This proposal was also discussed in an article written by Sean Bruyea, which is available on the website. VeteranVoice supports a public inquiry, and the staff believes such an investigation is long over due, particularly in the wake of the government's slow adoption of changes to the NVC, and the lack of implementation of solutions for systemic problems dating back to the Woods Committee (and earlier). There is support for a formal review, although the format has yet to be discussed and blessed by Veterans organisations. The topic will be covered in future articles, so be on the look-out for updates.
The impromptu meeting was followed by a general round of hellos as the participants greeted each other. We then moved to the meeting room to begin a very long and emotional session of frank discussions. The minister welcomed us to the first session of the VAC Stakeholders Committee meeting. Of note, there was a preliminary meeting on 14 June to discuss the composition and activities of this committee. VAC provided everyone with a draft agenda, which outlined what the senior VAC officials wanted to discuss. The format was quickly challenged by Don Leonardo and me. We stated that the representatives were not consulted about the agenda and we had many items that we wanted to discuss during this meeting. Basically, Don and I indicated that we were not going to follow the VAC plan.
I would like to believe two things happened as a result of our unscripted comments. First, it surprised the VAC officials, who may have expected a much more congenial meeting with the officials talking to us as opposed to talking with us. Second, it encouraged others to participate in every discussion throughout the day. The latter clearly indicated that many groups shared similar concerns about the major issues affecting the Veterans Community. It was reassuring that there was so much support for talking about these issues in spite of the detailed agenda prepared by VAC.
All of the participants respected each other so there were no rude or impolite words exchanged. The wealth of knowledge and experience of the group was clearly demonstrated as everyone could support their comments with facts and figures. This may have surprised the VAC officials because we could provide details of the legislation, policy, programs and benefits affecting Veterans. Nor was discussion limited to just a few speakers. Everyone who contributed was able to convey their passion for advocating on behalf of Veterans.
The words of the representatives were supported by the former chairs of three VAC committees: the Gerontological, SNAG and NVCAG. All three have contributed detailed reports full of recommendations to improve the quality of VAC, but unfortunately, VAC has either ignored these reports or been slow to implement the recommendations. This sadly has also been the fate of many recommendations particularly since the introduction of the NVC in 2006.
All of this information supports the importance of doing a in-depth study of VAC and related government agencies which have not provided satisfactory service to Veterans and are slow to implement changes aimed at improving how Canada honours its Veterans and their families. Canadians need to know about the inadequate support and what will be done to fix the systemic problems.
The discussions were a mix of criticisms and possible solutions. One of the most significant was the call for immediate adoption of the almost 500 recommendations for the NVC. The VAC officials were repeatedly challenged and questioned about their activities. It was very apparent that they were not prepared for the type of discussions which took place. Rather than being a series of presentations, it was more a series of open discussions with the representatives doing a lot of the talking. The VAC officials were not able to explain why problems persisted, but it was obvious that the administration was convoluted and decision-making is often limited to only a few people. For example, the deputy minister stated that Information Technology (IT) is very dated, she said “dark, dark ages”. The VAC website has over 180,000 pages and the information is either obsolete or incorrect. There is a reliance on working with paper (hard copy) instead of digital files. Mary Chaput, the ADM, spoke about a five year plan to modernise records, which was not favourably received by many representatives. Ms Chaput left the meeting after being “grilled” during her presentation. Stakeholders were not happy and want to see modernisation within one year as in five years who knows how far technology will have changed. The VAC ADM’s said they would do their best. At the request of Keith Hillier (ADM Service Delivery), VVi will have a poll question for the three most important additions Veterans would like to see on their My VAC Account, including a step-by-step application for access My VAC account.
Of note, VAC uses a policy manual of 1500 pages and many decisions are “exceptional”, which means that only senior officials are involved. One obvious consequence is that there are long delays in making decisions that should be achieved in days rather than months. The pace of activity is glacial and this is very unsatisfactory because Veterans, particularly elderly and seriously disabled, do not have the luxury of waiting for results.
Problems that were systemic before the NVC persist and the NVC has just compounded a poorly managed system.
Ms Tining did mention that VAC is well aware of its shortcomings, especially after the review conducted by Keith Coulter, which was summarised in a report to the federal cabinet in 2010. VAC has a long way to go to live up to its aspirations to be a provider of high quality services. She also stated that VAC is going to start using the KISS method for their website to make it easier for vets to understand decisions and applications.
VAC was repeatedly questioned to explain information about its monies. For example, the announcement of a budget reduction of $226 million was discussed and many asked for what will be affected by it as well as a 5% or 10% reduction in federal departments, and up to 500 staff cuts (VAC employs about 4500 people). The response was that the $226 million is a reduction in services for war service or traditional Veterans based on they’re declining numbers, and thus does not affect younger or post-war Veterans. There will be $189 million for NVC programs. Despite this topic being discussed several times, it was still difficult to follow the logic. I was reminded of the shell game or three card Monte. Money has been added and subtracted to the VAC budget resulting in a very confused situation. One would need to be an accountant to fully understand how the government uses its revenues, and even an accountant might be bewildered! .
The Veterans Ombudsman has already complained that a reduction of $226 million will adversely affect VAC's services. He has questioned the calculations made by VAC that indicated that the money could be cut. Just another reason for a public review of the department. Canada is planning cuts while our allies are freezing budgets or increasing them. This is a very negative trend for VAC. It reinforces the impression that Canada is unwilling to support its Veterans.
There was support for a motion that VAC increase its budget particularly in light of the many examples of limited financial support for Veterans and the need for new IT capabilities within the year. There were many examples of VAC “low balling” claims of medical conditions and refusing benefits to every type of Veteran (traditional and modern). This is similar to the initiatives in other countries, which are also expecting significant government financial reductions. Basically, there is a move to improve support for Veterans even though governments are cutting their expenses. VAC should be spending more not less!!!!
There was a lot of information and it is a challenge to recall much of it. This is one reason that I supported a motion that future meetings be recorded. The committee had agreed not to record these sessions on 14 June because it was believed that recordings would discourage participation. I believe that it is essential to provide an unedited video recording so that the Veterans Community can see and hear its representatives at work. The organisations participating do not truly represent the community and everyone should be able to access the information. There was continued resistance to the motion, but I shall continue to push for full disclosure. After eight hours, it was hard to remember many important details. This is in keeping with government's wish to be transparent and accountable. VAC, VeteranVoice and other organisations could post the video recordings on websites. Yes, these would be long but very informative. If you cannot be there then you can still be involved.
Reviewing the meetings will be useful in preparing for future meetings as well as following up on many topics. It was suggested by several people, including Ron Cundell, that VAC provide a progress report in the next 2-3 months in which it discusses what action has been taken to address issues discussed in the meeting. The report would be used to develop the agenda of future meetings. A report is essential to prove that VAC is cooperating with the Veterans Community. This committee can not become another waste of time and resources like the groups mentioned above (NVCAG and SNAG).
The plan is that the stakeholders will meet at least twice a year. I proposed that a future meeting be held in Charlottetown so that the committee can observe the “heart” of VAC (almost one-third of all VAC employees work in the headquarters, can you say heavily centralised). Also for the next meeting Col Gerry Blais, CO JPSU and Director Casualty Support Management, will present a brief from a “no rank” meeting with soldiers as to what they like and do not like about the NVC. If stakeholders are fighting to improve Veterans' benefits we need some direction from serving members of the CF and RCMP so they are not fighting the system when they retire.
VVi’s one on one meeting with Minister Blaney gave us the chance to explain to the Minister that VVi is a media portal to the veteran community. He will also consider VVi’s advice about releasing the OVO report on VRAB decisions and Federal Court rulings to release it the day he gets it and not use his 60 day grace period. Releasing this information immediately would show that the Minister has respect for the Veterans Community.
Following the formal end of the meeting, some of us gathered to express our views on what had happened. There had been a significant shift in the attitude of the VAC officials. At the start they may have been condescending (talking at us rather than with us), but they were more willing to admit that they have many faults at the end. As we know admitting to a problem is one of the first steps to finding a solution. Now it will be important to keep observing VAC to ensure solutions are implemented, sooner rather than later.
The Veterans Ombudsman was in attendance for the start of the meeting, and then he left to attend his staff meeting. His absence was noted. He did say that he had not planned to participate because it was an originally an advisory committee (the name changed following the meeting on 14 June). He did attend all of the RCL meeting on 29 October. I asked him whether he would attend future stakeholder meetings. At first he was reluctant suggesting that he was uncomfortable. I responded that he needs to have a presence because he is one of the most important representatives of the Veterans Community and we need to have good representation by “stakeholders”. He said there will be an OVO presence in the future.
I am guardedly optimistic that the meeting was useful. Now it is the duty of VAC to schedule future meetings and stay involved with its stakeholders. VAC and the Veterans Community have important roles to play in order to ensure that Canada continues to honour its social covenant or contract with its Veterans and their families.
Please read some of the other information about this meeting and other events. In particular, I encourage everyone to nominate new representatives. It is important to have a good cross-section of representatives including the CF, RCMP, Veterans Community, health care professionals, academic advisers and government officials (Treasury Board, VAC employees and senior staff, etc.)
Veteran's Voice is an informative website.
The following is his take of the October meetings with VAC.
Keep On Advocating
Last week, representatives of VeteranVoice and other Veterans organisations participated in two meetings in Ottawa. The first was held on 24 October and was organised by VAC. The minister, the Honourable Steven Blaney, opened the meeting and then spent the day meeting with the representatives, while the deputy minister, Suzanne Tining, chaired the eight hour main session.
The second meeting was organised by the Royal Canadian Legion (RCL) and was held on 29 October in the national headquarters of the RCL. This was a shorter meeting, scheduled for five hours and covered related topics. Both meetings were very interesting. Both demonstrated that there is many similarities among the groups in terms of concerns and a determination to improve the provisions of services to the Veterans Community. There may be differences in terminology and priorities, but there is unity of purpose. We need to keep advocating on behalf of the Veterans Community.
The first meeting was preceded by an informal gathering scheduled by Don Leonardo,of Veterans of Canada. He solicited support for a public inquiry similar to the Woods Committee of the mid-1960's. The panel considered 148 recommendations and most were implemented within two years of the final report from Judge Mervyn Woods. This proposal was also discussed in an article written by Sean Bruyea, which is available on the website. VeteranVoice supports a public inquiry, and the staff believes such an investigation is long over due, particularly in the wake of the government's slow adoption of changes to the NVC, and the lack of implementation of solutions for systemic problems dating back to the Woods Committee (and earlier). There is support for a formal review, although the format has yet to be discussed and blessed by Veterans organisations. The topic will be covered in future articles, so be on the look-out for updates.
The impromptu meeting was followed by a general round of hellos as the participants greeted each other. We then moved to the meeting room to begin a very long and emotional session of frank discussions. The minister welcomed us to the first session of the VAC Stakeholders Committee meeting. Of note, there was a preliminary meeting on 14 June to discuss the composition and activities of this committee. VAC provided everyone with a draft agenda, which outlined what the senior VAC officials wanted to discuss. The format was quickly challenged by Don Leonardo and me. We stated that the representatives were not consulted about the agenda and we had many items that we wanted to discuss during this meeting. Basically, Don and I indicated that we were not going to follow the VAC plan.
I would like to believe two things happened as a result of our unscripted comments. First, it surprised the VAC officials, who may have expected a much more congenial meeting with the officials talking to us as opposed to talking with us. Second, it encouraged others to participate in every discussion throughout the day. The latter clearly indicated that many groups shared similar concerns about the major issues affecting the Veterans Community. It was reassuring that there was so much support for talking about these issues in spite of the detailed agenda prepared by VAC.
All of the participants respected each other so there were no rude or impolite words exchanged. The wealth of knowledge and experience of the group was clearly demonstrated as everyone could support their comments with facts and figures. This may have surprised the VAC officials because we could provide details of the legislation, policy, programs and benefits affecting Veterans. Nor was discussion limited to just a few speakers. Everyone who contributed was able to convey their passion for advocating on behalf of Veterans.
The words of the representatives were supported by the former chairs of three VAC committees: the Gerontological, SNAG and NVCAG. All three have contributed detailed reports full of recommendations to improve the quality of VAC, but unfortunately, VAC has either ignored these reports or been slow to implement the recommendations. This sadly has also been the fate of many recommendations particularly since the introduction of the NVC in 2006.
All of this information supports the importance of doing a in-depth study of VAC and related government agencies which have not provided satisfactory service to Veterans and are slow to implement changes aimed at improving how Canada honours its Veterans and their families. Canadians need to know about the inadequate support and what will be done to fix the systemic problems.
The discussions were a mix of criticisms and possible solutions. One of the most significant was the call for immediate adoption of the almost 500 recommendations for the NVC. The VAC officials were repeatedly challenged and questioned about their activities. It was very apparent that they were not prepared for the type of discussions which took place. Rather than being a series of presentations, it was more a series of open discussions with the representatives doing a lot of the talking. The VAC officials were not able to explain why problems persisted, but it was obvious that the administration was convoluted and decision-making is often limited to only a few people. For example, the deputy minister stated that Information Technology (IT) is very dated, she said “dark, dark ages”. The VAC website has over 180,000 pages and the information is either obsolete or incorrect. There is a reliance on working with paper (hard copy) instead of digital files. Mary Chaput, the ADM, spoke about a five year plan to modernise records, which was not favourably received by many representatives. Ms Chaput left the meeting after being “grilled” during her presentation. Stakeholders were not happy and want to see modernisation within one year as in five years who knows how far technology will have changed. The VAC ADM’s said they would do their best. At the request of Keith Hillier (ADM Service Delivery), VVi will have a poll question for the three most important additions Veterans would like to see on their My VAC Account, including a step-by-step application for access My VAC account.
Of note, VAC uses a policy manual of 1500 pages and many decisions are “exceptional”, which means that only senior officials are involved. One obvious consequence is that there are long delays in making decisions that should be achieved in days rather than months. The pace of activity is glacial and this is very unsatisfactory because Veterans, particularly elderly and seriously disabled, do not have the luxury of waiting for results.
Problems that were systemic before the NVC persist and the NVC has just compounded a poorly managed system.
Ms Tining did mention that VAC is well aware of its shortcomings, especially after the review conducted by Keith Coulter, which was summarised in a report to the federal cabinet in 2010. VAC has a long way to go to live up to its aspirations to be a provider of high quality services. She also stated that VAC is going to start using the KISS method for their website to make it easier for vets to understand decisions and applications.
VAC was repeatedly questioned to explain information about its monies. For example, the announcement of a budget reduction of $226 million was discussed and many asked for what will be affected by it as well as a 5% or 10% reduction in federal departments, and up to 500 staff cuts (VAC employs about 4500 people). The response was that the $226 million is a reduction in services for war service or traditional Veterans based on they’re declining numbers, and thus does not affect younger or post-war Veterans. There will be $189 million for NVC programs. Despite this topic being discussed several times, it was still difficult to follow the logic. I was reminded of the shell game or three card Monte. Money has been added and subtracted to the VAC budget resulting in a very confused situation. One would need to be an accountant to fully understand how the government uses its revenues, and even an accountant might be bewildered! .
The Veterans Ombudsman has already complained that a reduction of $226 million will adversely affect VAC's services. He has questioned the calculations made by VAC that indicated that the money could be cut. Just another reason for a public review of the department. Canada is planning cuts while our allies are freezing budgets or increasing them. This is a very negative trend for VAC. It reinforces the impression that Canada is unwilling to support its Veterans.
There was support for a motion that VAC increase its budget particularly in light of the many examples of limited financial support for Veterans and the need for new IT capabilities within the year. There were many examples of VAC “low balling” claims of medical conditions and refusing benefits to every type of Veteran (traditional and modern). This is similar to the initiatives in other countries, which are also expecting significant government financial reductions. Basically, there is a move to improve support for Veterans even though governments are cutting their expenses. VAC should be spending more not less!!!!
There was a lot of information and it is a challenge to recall much of it. This is one reason that I supported a motion that future meetings be recorded. The committee had agreed not to record these sessions on 14 June because it was believed that recordings would discourage participation. I believe that it is essential to provide an unedited video recording so that the Veterans Community can see and hear its representatives at work. The organisations participating do not truly represent the community and everyone should be able to access the information. There was continued resistance to the motion, but I shall continue to push for full disclosure. After eight hours, it was hard to remember many important details. This is in keeping with government's wish to be transparent and accountable. VAC, VeteranVoice and other organisations could post the video recordings on websites. Yes, these would be long but very informative. If you cannot be there then you can still be involved.
Reviewing the meetings will be useful in preparing for future meetings as well as following up on many topics. It was suggested by several people, including Ron Cundell, that VAC provide a progress report in the next 2-3 months in which it discusses what action has been taken to address issues discussed in the meeting. The report would be used to develop the agenda of future meetings. A report is essential to prove that VAC is cooperating with the Veterans Community. This committee can not become another waste of time and resources like the groups mentioned above (NVCAG and SNAG).
The plan is that the stakeholders will meet at least twice a year. I proposed that a future meeting be held in Charlottetown so that the committee can observe the “heart” of VAC (almost one-third of all VAC employees work in the headquarters, can you say heavily centralised). Also for the next meeting Col Gerry Blais, CO JPSU and Director Casualty Support Management, will present a brief from a “no rank” meeting with soldiers as to what they like and do not like about the NVC. If stakeholders are fighting to improve Veterans' benefits we need some direction from serving members of the CF and RCMP so they are not fighting the system when they retire.
VVi’s one on one meeting with Minister Blaney gave us the chance to explain to the Minister that VVi is a media portal to the veteran community. He will also consider VVi’s advice about releasing the OVO report on VRAB decisions and Federal Court rulings to release it the day he gets it and not use his 60 day grace period. Releasing this information immediately would show that the Minister has respect for the Veterans Community.
Following the formal end of the meeting, some of us gathered to express our views on what had happened. There had been a significant shift in the attitude of the VAC officials. At the start they may have been condescending (talking at us rather than with us), but they were more willing to admit that they have many faults at the end. As we know admitting to a problem is one of the first steps to finding a solution. Now it will be important to keep observing VAC to ensure solutions are implemented, sooner rather than later.
The Veterans Ombudsman was in attendance for the start of the meeting, and then he left to attend his staff meeting. His absence was noted. He did say that he had not planned to participate because it was an originally an advisory committee (the name changed following the meeting on 14 June). He did attend all of the RCL meeting on 29 October. I asked him whether he would attend future stakeholder meetings. At first he was reluctant suggesting that he was uncomfortable. I responded that he needs to have a presence because he is one of the most important representatives of the Veterans Community and we need to have good representation by “stakeholders”. He said there will be an OVO presence in the future.
I am guardedly optimistic that the meeting was useful. Now it is the duty of VAC to schedule future meetings and stay involved with its stakeholders. VAC and the Veterans Community have important roles to play in order to ensure that Canada continues to honour its social covenant or contract with its Veterans and their families.
Please read some of the other information about this meeting and other events. In particular, I encourage everyone to nominate new representatives. It is important to have a good cross-section of representatives including the CF, RCMP, Veterans Community, health care professionals, academic advisers and government officials (Treasury Board, VAC employees and senior staff, etc.)