By Michael Blais
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy, by definition, is not a traditional veterans’ organization: This is deliberate. Founded in the aftermath of the 1st Canadian Veterans National Day of Protest, the CVA’s primary objectives are; to proactively champion parliamentary changes essential to reforming VAC and to secure Pension Act equality in respect to the national sacrifice for thousands of physically and/or traumatized Canadians service personnel subsequent to the harsh realities of the Afghanistan War.
Our approach has been purposefully apolitical, message-centric and inclusive of a multi-level focus on issues which are identified through extensive consultation with mentally or physically disabled veterans and their families. As a formal stakeholder, we have engaged effectively with respect to the implementation/application of VAC policy since 2011. At that juncture Minister Steven Blaney, a Conservative, invited CVA to participate at the “stakeholder” level.
Parliamentary advocacy during Minister Julian Fantino's era proved particularly robust, predicated on increasing levels of discord amongst Afghan War casualties and the lack of definitive movement by the conservatives in addressing the central issues which CVA represented. Collective efforts within the veterans' community proved productive, generating levels of national, regional and local awareness. Perhaps concerned by this growing solidarity among vets, Harper abruptly replaced Fantino with novice parliamentarian, former CAF member, and ex RCAF navigator Erin O’Toole, CD.
Whereas Fantino seemed cold and aloof, O’Toole was a smooth talking Bay Street lawyer, media savvy with a personable public persona. The façade deftly concealed his zeal to curtail departmental expenses by ‘streamlining' VAC’s bureaucracy and policies. This reform was predicated upon the looming demise of WW2 and Korean War which will shift the department’s focus towards modern veteran’s who are deemed moderately to severely disabled, as determined by VAC’s Table of Disabilities.
That is the theory but not the reality. For example, a veteran may be deemed Totally and Permanently Impaired by Manulife’s SISIP LTD or VAC Earning Loss Benefits program yet the same incapacity is rated by VAC’s ancient Table of Disabilities below that level which VAC requires in order for a client to be deemed moderately to severely disabled. This disparity in reality affects access to the Retirement Income Security Benefit at age 65, which only recognizes VAC’s moderate to severe disability rating as a qualifier.
O’Toole’s tactics and management of disenfranchised veterans represented by the Equitas group proved very effective in maneuvering them into an abeyance during the election period. Simultaneously, O’Toole supervised a dedicated process of ‘streamlining' hundreds of vital front line positions into oblivion. The consequences of these cutbacks on the veterans' community were immediate, increasingly profound and are perpetuated to this day. Case management, for those few assigned a case manager, have blossomed into an unsustainable ratio. Veterans seeking acknowledgement of their national sacrifice experienced prolonged delays as the overwhelmed processing staff ‘ streamlined' decisions through new conservative policies designed to appease the few yet exclude and deny the majority. Of particular note was the criteria established for the Combat Injury Benefit.
Quite the legacy has been established under O’Toole’s leadership.
As a result VAC was mortally dysfunctional by the time the conservative mandate ended in 2015, and it has yet to recover, despite dedicated efforts on the part of Trudeau’s Liberals to improve the quality of service.
Objectively, there have been significant improvements in respect to mental health, suicide prevention, support for caregiving spouses and for the family unit’s financial and psychological requirements.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been committed to veterans over the past six years. This has resolved many contentious issues. The much reviled Lump Sum Award has been elevated to $360 thousand and a choice of the Liberal’s version of Pension For Life (PFL), which, while remaining deficient when compared to the recognition of an individual's national sacrifice which the Pension Act accords, it is as they say 'better than nothing'!
Will the conservative mantra of balancing the budget repeat itself should O’Toole and his Conservative Party form the next government?
When confronted with the Liberal’s massive pandemic deficit, will O’Toole implement draconian austerity programs, which would include drastic civil servant staff reductions under the never ending guise of ‘streamlining' services? Will the $1150 at 100% Pension for Life and/or definitely positive improvements which were only made possible under a Liberal government be subject to review and fiscal reforms? Will Veterans Affairs Canada, always the target of past austerity programs, be ‘ streamlined’ in order to balance a deficit fighting Conservative budget? Will the national debt once again be prioritized ahead of the blood sweat and tears of disabled veterans?
Will it be Déjà vu all over again for O’toole?
