Get Rob Anders off the Veterans Affairs Committee

It's not just that he's a waste of good room air or even that he continually falls asleep on watch.

It's that he clearly can't stand veterans. When Jim Lowther and David MacLeod, of Veterans Emergency Transition Services, criticized Anders for sleeping through their presentations, this is how he dealt with it.

“It’s a smear job,” Mr. Anders said, categorically denying that he fell asleep during the presentation.

...

“They praised Vladimir Putin, at one point, for the way he deals with veterans, and then he just went on and on praising Peter Stoffer,” Mr. Anders said. “[Mr. Lowther] is the same guy who tried to crash one of the Prime Minister’s rallies and is on NDP press releases.” 

Lying little chickenhawk. Anders did fall asleep and his attempt to smear two veterans is nothing short of contempt for every person who ever wore a uniform, has campaign medals, has wound stripes and lives with nightmares.

From Jim Lowther:

“I’ve been called a Canadian hero – I did two tours of Bosnia and one in Afghanistan – and now I’m a NDP hack? Never been called that before.”

 Especially since he appears to be a Conservative party member.

From David MacLeod:

“I’m an ex-intelligence officer and worked on the NORAD closure. ... How likely do you think it is that I support Vladimir Putin?” Mr. MacLeod said. “I was just saying Russia, which doesn’t always treat its vets well, had a hospital for Afghan and Chechen vets who had post traumatic stress disorder.” 

Mr. MacLeod said he, too, is not an NDP supporter. In fact, he has voted for Peter MacKay in his Central Nova riding and is a member of the Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative Party.

Who also added:

“It’s just stupid to say we’re NDP hacks and frankly, I don’t think this reflects well on the party,” he added. “[Mr. Anders] should have just said he was sorry he fell asleep and that would have been the end of it.”

Not anymore. No veteran should be put in a position to have to share the same space with such a useless and self-absorbed piece of shit as Rob Anders.

And the Chief arrives with both barrels smoking ...

If you're not a veteran you may not understand this. If you're a veteran and you've never made an application to Veterans Affairs Canada, you too may not understand this. But if you've made a claim, based on real service related issues, you'll know all about it.

A review of Veterans Affairs Canada's letters to former soldiers who have been denied disability benefits has revealed a pattern of providing information but no adequate explanation of how the decisions were made.

"All the letters examined failed a test of adequacy in the reasons given for the decisions," says the country's veterans ombudsman, Guy Parent, in a report released Monday.

He reviewed a random sample of 213 decision letters sent out between 2001 and 2010. While they mostly dealt with denial of benefits, the letters sometimes explained what benefits were granted.

In short, no one can understand the reason for or, as is normally the case, the reason for denying a claim.  In fact, Veterans Affairs and their unwieldy decisions make Sun Life Insurance look good.

Some things the average reader may not know, just to create something of a perspective.

I know Guy Parent personally. He is not taken to politically motivated action so everything he says is coming from the results of hard work and diligence on behalf of the people he serves - Canadian Forces veterans.

He's no slouch. Guy Parent is one tough individual. He is a retired Rescue Specialist from the RCAF and he doesn't suffer anyone swinging the lead. During my time in the Canadian Forces we were always the same rank and, for a reason I can never describe to myself, I always considered him my better.

Now, I'm going to disagree with him.

Parent said he doesn't think the department is deliberately trying to confuse former soldiers.

Sorry, old friend, I don't buy that. It's deliberate. If it wasn't, there would be clear reasons in writing in every case. The purpose for avoiding the provision of reasons is to provide camouflage. They're either lazy or they're lying. Either way every case needs to be reviewed. The truth is, VAC says NO to every claim they can just to try and make the claimant disappear. It's easier to do that to a veteran than explain their reasons to the minister. If that is not the result of a ministerial order then the civil servants involved think it is.

In response, some minky working for the Minister of Veterans Affairs burped this out:

Cutting red tape and providing hassle-free services to our veterans is Minister Blaney's top priority. The minister welcomes the recommendations in the ombudsman's report and intends to act quickly.

Interesting. And this veteran is calling bullshit.

You're starting to piss me off. Updated

You're only as good as the good you can do.

If you're an ombudsman, that means you weigh the complaint with the knowledge that you are the only door through which the complainant feels safe to pass. But if the complainant doesn't believe he/she is going to get a sympathetic ear, they'll find another way to make their case and it probably won't end well for you.

You, Guy Parent, may decide not to be vocal, but I suspect veterans won't sit by and abide a silence which results in nothing. We do, after all, come from long careers in a "results" oriented mob.

Whatever your methods, veterans expect results. And with a speed you may not yet comprehend. They... we... expect a fix to the problems in right rapid order.

You may not think the system is broken, but most of us are in a position to disagree. And not just mildly.

You will remember the occasion of the Rescue Specialist who, on a life-saving mission, received orders to standby and hook-up. Then he was told to stand down. Then hook-up. Then another stand down. Then he was ordered to jump. He did. In the confusion, he left the aircraft without his static line connected and broke most of the bones in his body.

The results of the summary investigation are now meaningless, save for the protocols which were developed to prevent such incidents in the future. But this country owes that jumper, no less than they owe any other member who suffered an injury, wound or loss of faculty due to the conditions under which they served.

And they shouldn't have to make repeated applications to have their conditions acknowledged by VAC. The department treats applicants as though they are trying to game the system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but back in new entry training we were told that if we suffered any form of permanent damage, we would be looked after. Perhaps our instructors shouldn't have used the examples of our then surviving veterans to make their point. Clearly they believed something different than the reality which faces veterans today.

Canada treated its Great War veterans like dogs. After suffering through the Somme, taking Vimy Ridge, liberating Passchendaele and becoming the acknowledged storm troopers of the armies of the British Empire, Canada kicked them into the gutter within six months of them returning home.

That was corrected after the 2nd World War. Canada was acknowledged as having one of the most generous and comprehensive veterans' rehabilitation schemes and life-long care systems in the world. Of course it probably helped that over 50 percent of post-war members of parliament were actually veterans.

Funny how that works. Especially compared to today where almost none have served, including the ministers responsible, and they're finding the Great War solution to veterans the most convenient to their political ambitions. 

To tell a profoundly wounded veteran that he/she will get a lump sum payment and then tossed onto the lines of a provincial medical system (which is not prepared to handle such wounds) is a gross betrayal of the compact with this country which has existed since the end of the 2nd World War. If that isn't a broken system, then demonstrate how it can be described as fair.

In 1938, before the 2nd World War had erupted and referring to Great War and Boer War veterans, Professor Stephen Leacock wrote in the Veteran's Annual Commentator:

When the war ends they are welcomed home under arches of flowers with all the girls leaping for their necks, and within six months they are expected to vanish into thin air, keep out of the public house and give no trouble.

Not this time, mate. You have a lot of work to do and not a lot of time.

H/T CC

Additional listening and reading:

Via Noni Mausa in comments Guy Parent responds to questions on CBC The Current. This is looking like something that is going to end very badly indeed. Listen to yourself, Guy. What do you think veterans heard?

Gerald Caplan lays it all out in front of you. (H/T Greg). Read every word, Guy, but read this over twice.

The Royal Canadian Mint pays for an entire page in The Globe advertising its new commemorative poppy coin and its Remembrance Day collector cards. The cards sell for $9.95 (not $10?), half of which will go to the Military Families Fund. I first discovered this fund a year ago, on the eve of Remembrance Day 2009. An organization I’d never heard of called the True Patriot Love Foundation held a gala in Toronto to raise $2-million for this fund, which assists military families facing urgent financial need resulting from conditions of service.

[...]

But no one at the Mint or at the gala seemed to ask the obvious question: Why should military families need private charity if they have issues arising from serving overseas? Two million dollars is chump change for any government. Stephen Harper's office alone now costs us $10-million a year. So why do our vets and their families need $2-million from private sources? What if they need more than $2-million? Why should the soldiers we honour so loudly be dependent on charity?

You have work to do. And you work for the citizens of this country - not Harper.

New Veterans Ombudsman

Well, well. It looks like the Harperites have made a decision and they may have grabbed a tiger by the tail.

A retired chief warrant officer has been named Canada's new veterans ombudsman.

Guy Parent replaces the outspoken Pat Stogran, a retired colonel who led a high-profile — and controversial — campaign to improve benefits for veterans.

Parent was Stogran's director of investigations and worked in the military ombudsman's office for nine years before that. He is a 37-year Canadian Forces veteran.

This should be interesting. I know Guy Parent very, very well. He's no shrinking violet. In fact, he's the opposite. Parent is a retired air force rescue specialist and one very tough individual.

As much as I had hoped the pressure to retain Pat Stogran had resulted in his reappointment, Guy Parent is a good appointment to the position. If the Harperites were hoping for a compliant patsy, they didn't get one.

Veterans Week

Murray Brewster :

"A trove of leaked internal Veterans Affairs documents suggests bureaucrats knew from the beginning that a new system of benefits would mean less cash for injured soldiers with one analysis projecting savings of up to $40 million per year.
Another analysis, contained among 3,500 pages obtained by The Canadian Press, raised concern that some disabled veterans might be forced back to work or to take up part-time jobs to supplement their income."

Stogran is out of his job on Remembrance Day. As Rick says : "Stogran stood up for veterans. Where are the MPs who are going to stand up for him?"

Well?

Veterans Week begins November 6. On Nov 6th at 11:00, veterans across Canada are gathering at MP's offices to voice their concerns about the new system. Come out and support them and throw up a fist for Stogran .

.

Will the next Veterans Ombudsman even be a veteran?

One is left wondering when one reads this Notice of Vacancy posted at Veterans Affairs Canada. (Emphasis mine)

The successful candidate must have a degree from a recognized university in a relevant discipline or a combination of equivalent education, job-related training and experience. A law degree would be an asset.

Interesting. Colonel Stogran has a degree in electrical engineering.

The selected candidate must have demonstrated experience in developing and fostering productive partnerships, as well as experience dealing with government, preferably with senior officials.

That all depends on what "dealing with government" means and what constitutes a "senior official". Are we talking about the bureaucracy or are we talking about the hillbillies in the Prime Minister's Office? Is a senior official a senior civil servant (a boffin) or a PMO message management merchant (bollard head)?

The favoured candidate must have knowledge of the principles of administrative law and natural justice ...

I'm betting the Command and Staff College level of legal training for senior officers is suddenly not going to be sufficient.

The selected candidate must have good knowledge of the operations of government.

Really? In relation to what? Does this mean some intimate knowledge beyond what a responsible and informed citizen would possess? Or, does this mean willing to take orders from the political animals in the PMO?

The chosen candidate must possess strong leadership and managerial skills and a proven aptitude for appropriate and effective liaison and interaction with stakeholders. The successful candidate must have superior interpersonal skills and will be an individual of integrity, discretion and strong professional ethics. The ability to apply analytical, interpretative and evaluative thinking to situations and the ability to anticipate the short and long-term consequences of his/her strategies are required. In addition, the preferred candidate will have superior communications skills, both written and oral, and the ability to act as spokesperson in dealing with the media, public institutions, governments and other organizations. The selected candidate will not only be objective, impartial and fair, but also flexible and resilient.

Colonel Stogran was all of those things, and more. I am betting, however, that "flexible and resilient" doesn't mean getting knocked down by the kids in the PMO and come back fighting.

It's starting to look like the PCO wants a senior civil servant lawyer with connections to the current government. Either Pat Stogran's appointment as the first Veterans Ombudsman was PMO orchestrated window dressing or they simply couldn't handle the type of fight offered by a real combat veteran. Maybe it was a bit of both.

In any case, nowhere in that Notice of Vacancy does it state that the candidate, successful, preferred, chosen or otherwise will possess experience with the Canadian Forces and have a strong understanding of the culture of Canada's service personnel.

Screwing our veterans since 2006

On the list of recently fired Veterans Ombudsman Col. Pat Stogran’s complaints was Ottawa’s decision to institute lump sum payments for injured soldiers.

FAIR : "For almost a century prior to April 2006, Canada honoured the non-fatal sacrifices suffered by our men and women in uniform with a lifelong tax-free disability pension. Since April 1, 2006, injured soldiers, including most non-fatal casualties from Afghanistan receive a one-time lump sum amount to compensate for their lifelong injuries."

So what kind of money are we talking with that lump sum?
Via David Pugliese we learn that 19 year old Cpl. Martin Renaud lost both legs below the knee to an IED in Afghanistan. His lump sum for "pain and suffering" was $250,000, nearly the maximum amount.

The old charter guaranteed monthly pension payments for life that increased if a condition worsened. Under the new charter, disabled veterans who follow a rehabilitation program will receive a lump payment and a monthly cheque representing 75 per cent of their "pre-release" salary until they find a job in civilian life.
If they are too injured to work, they receive 75 per cent of their salary until age 65

As noted by a commenter there : if Renaud lives to be 80, that $250,000 works out to about $4000 a year or $ 341.53 a month. Or $11 a day. Or three coffees a day. For a lifetime of pain and suffering.

But Veterans Affairs Minister Jean Pierre Blackburn assures us that veterans are happy with the lumpsum payment plan:

"Our survey indicates that the lump sum award is the preferred option for 69 percent of those veterans who have received this benefit. This shows us that the changes that were made in 2006 were the right thing to do."

About Blackburn's 69% approval rating on his survey ...

Back to retired Canadian Forces Intelligence Officer Sean Bruyea at FAIR :

"...only 11% of the lump sum recipients completed the survey and not one of the more than 100,000 veterans who receive the lifelong disability pension were contacted.
The average lump sum paid out to injured soldiers over the past five years has been less than $40,000."

h/t Holly Stick in comments