#FedElect2019 VAC Promises

[The Bread Guy]

Here's what's out there so far ...

Conservatives:

... Scheer highlighted that a new Conservative government will:

    Enshrine, in legislation, a Military Covenant between the Government of Canada and all Canada’s Veterans. This will guarantee that every Veteran is treated with respect and is provided services in a timely manner.
    Clear the current backlog of Veterans’ benefit applications within 24 months.
    Create a reliable, dependable pension system that, unlike the Liberal status quo, is fair to Canada’s most disabled Veterans.
    Strengthen transition services to support discharged or retired Canadian Armed Forces members.
    Strike an independent inquiry to provide answers about Canadian Armed Forces members who were administered mefloquine.
    Provide more service dogs to Canadian Veterans in their communities.
    Put vital commemoration projects, like the National Memorial for Canada’s War in Afghanistan, back on track ...

More in attached 2-page party backgrounder.

NDP:

Canadian veterans have made untold sacrifices for our country. To honour their service, we need to offer the best care and support possible when they come home.

Unfortunately, for too long, veterans have had to fight for the benefits they’ve earned. For a decade, the Conservative government denied and clawed back benefits, took veterans to court, and cut access to basic care. They closed nine regional offices that provided services for tens of thousands of veterans across Canada and argued in court that the government has no sacred obligation to care for Canada’s veterans.

While hopes were high that the Liberal government would improve veterans care, they’ve broken their commitments, failed to improve services, and left billions in money earmarked for veterans care unspent. Years of court cases and broken promises have deepened the disappointment and mistrust that’s felt by many of Canada’s veterans.

It’s time to do right by our veterans.

A New Democrat government will honour the special bond of mutual obligation between Canadians and veterans, and deliver the services that veterans need and deserve. As part of this process, we will launch a full review of benefits and work with veterans to determine the best way to provide fair benefits to all veterans, including tackling the issue of equal access to lifetime pensions.

Veterans shouldn’t have to wait weeks or even months to receive the services they need. We’ll get rid of backlogs and step up high-quality, personalized service delivery by providing one caseworker for every twenty-five veterans and improving services that are delivered by phone and online.

There’s also much more that we can do to ease the transition from service for veterans. A New Democrat government will give Canadian Forces members access to care and support before the transition and make sure that their benefits are in place before they are released from service.

To give more veterans access to post-secondary education and training that works for them, we will expand the education benefit to more people. We will also help support veterans and their families by reviewing the caregiver allowance and making it available to more people.

New Democrats will work with partners in community services and the veterans community to end veteran homelessness for good – because one veteran on the streets is one too many.

And to ensure that taxpayer money earmarked for veterans care actually gets spent on it, we will automatically carry forward all annual lapsed spending in Veterans Affairs to improve services. There should never be an incentive for any government to save money on the backs of veterans.

Greens:  screen grab attached

PPC:

... The government of Canada has an obligation to honour the nation’s sacred commitment to our military men and women and make sure our veterans receive the support they deserve.

A People’s Party government will:

    Recognize and respect the unique sacrifices of those who serve and have served in Canada’s Armed Forces.
    Enshrine in legislation the country’s obligations to our veterans in a Military Covenant between the government and those who serve in the Armed Forces.
    Reinstate the fair disability pension as previously provided for by the Pension Act. The pension will apply retroactively to 2006 and lump sum payments received since then will be treated as advance payments.
    Instigate a line-by-line review of the New Veterans Charter (including the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act of 2011), to determine which policies and programs should be retained, simplify the system and make it easier to navigate.
    Reemphasize the legislative guarantee of the “Benefit of doubt” standard under the Pension Act.

Liberals:  nothing on their 2019 site as of this post

 

[Haggis]

I watched Scheer's announcement and the Q&A that followed where the former Conservative government was called out for closing VAC offices and cutting services.  Rather than answer the question, he deflected.  i would have liked to see him say "we made a mistake back then and we're going to make it right".

 

[Brad Sallows]

I understand the obligation to do right by people injured and disabled during military operations.  I understand the obligation to meet commitments regarding compensation and benefits.  In some cases, like the lump-sum disability payouts, reversion to earlier policies would be wise and just.

I don't understand a particular need to have any sort of "covenant" or "special bond" with all veterans.  It's an occupation (for some, a profession) among many.

 

[JesseWZ]

As someone who is releasing very shortly and hoping to take advantage of 80 g's of fresh green education money, I am very much hoping whoever wins does not renege on that benefit. Regardless of the party that put it in place, that policy is a winner with me.

 

[brihard]

As someone who is releasing very shortly and hoping to take advantage of 80 g's of fresh green education money, I am very much hoping whoever wins does not renege on that benefit. Regardless of the party that put it in place, that policy is a winner with me.

Likewise. It’s a damned good benefit for those of us who put enough time in to hit one or both tiers.

 

[TCM621]

I understand the obligation to do right by people injured and disabled during military operations.  I understand the obligation to meet commitments regarding compensation and benefits.  In some cases, like the lump-sum disability payouts, reversion to earlier policies would be wise and just.

I don't understand a particular need to have any sort of "covenant" or "special bond" with all veterans.  It's an occupation (for some, a profession) among many.

Because it's the only profession where your employer can order you to put yourself in a position where death is likely. Even firefighters and police, who enter potentially dangerous situations, aren't put in situations where death is the most likely outcome.

We have no right to strike, no right to assembly or protest. We have no right to withhold our labour for any reason. We trade all that for the expectation that the country will look after us.

 

[mariomike]

Even firefighters and police, who enter potentially dangerous situations, aren't put in situations where death is the most likely outcome.

We have no right to strike, no right to assembly or protest. We have no right to withhold our labour for any reason.

If comparing the CAF to the emergency services,

I was in a union. We did not have, and did not seek, the right to strike, or the right to refuse work, "where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."

Among other types of calls, that could include being assigned to a Rescue Task Force ( RTF ) at an Active Shooter / Hostile Event ( ASHE ) call.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>We trade all that for the expectation that the country will look after us.

Of course.  Hence "meet obligations", etc.  But "covenant"?  Is that just a fancy word for "meet obligations" (ie. unnecessary), or is there supposed to be more?

 

[Cloud Cover]

I guess they are just trying to conjure up some form of “ sacred” trust in addition to a contractual or fiduciary obligation. Perhaps the “covenant”  is political in the sense of after they “fix it”, they won’t fuck with it anymore.

 

[Remius]

I think the Brits introduced the concept a few years ago.

I don't think they ever legislated it though.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I think the Brits introduced the concept a few years ago.

I don't think they ever legislated it though.

A bit more on that for reference from the UK's Parliamentary research arm ...

... The Armed Forces Covenant was introduced in 2011 and is a statement of the moral obligation which exists between the nation, the Government and the Armed Forces in return for the sacrifices they make. Its core principles were enshrined in law in the Armed Forces Act 2011, although the Covenant does not create legally enforceable rights for service or former service personnel.

It is the Armed Forces Covenant which provides the central focus of current Government policy towards veterans. As of 2015, there were an estimated 2.56 million UK armed forces veterans living in households across Great Britain. The Covenant outlines two core principles which influence the support and policies directed towards the veteran community;

    No disadvantage: no current or former member of the armed forces, or their families, should be at a disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.
    Special consideration: special consideration is appropriate in some cases, particularly for those who have been injured or bereaved ...

More general info (usual Wikipedia caveats) here and @ the official UK gov't site here.

 

[meni0n]

I watched Scheer's announcement and the Q&A that followed where the former Conservative government was called out for closing VAC offices and cutting services.  Rather than answer the question, he deflected.  i would have liked to see him say "we made a mistake back then and we're going to make it right".

Local office has been completely useless to me. Every time I go there, it seems like they just want to get you to leave as soon as possible. I had no explanation of benefits and no recommendation for what programs to apply for. I had to do the research myself and to apply. Also, most of the answers I got from them was to call the national number. What is the point of this office...

 

[kratz]

I understand the obligation to do right by people injured and disabled during military operations.  I understand the obligation to meet commitments regarding compensation and benefits.  In some cases, like the lump-sum disability payouts, reversion to earlier policies would be wise and just.

I don't understand a particular need to have any sort of "covenant" or "special bond" with all veterans.  It's an occupation (for some, a profession) among many.

This election promise stems from this summer's veteran lawsuit: There is no ‘sacred duty’ to Canada’s veterans
The Liberal government lawyers argued there is no sacred duty to veterans.
The PC party election promise attempts to address this.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"No disadvantage: no current or former member of the armed forces, or their families, should be at a disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services."

I can simplify and improve that: "No citizen should be at a disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services."

"the Covenant does not create legally enforceable rights for service or former service personnel."

That's the potential problem in one direction - all hat, no cattle.  In the other direction the potential problem is a steady accretion of giveaways without any defining boundaries.

Give the propensity of governments to jerk veterans around, the vague feel-good language should be dropped and replaced with a specified list of easily litigated (if it becomes necessary) powers and entitlements (if any).

 

[garb811]

This election promise stems from this summer's veteran lawsuit: There is no ‘sacred duty’ to Canada’s veterans
The Liberal government lawyers argued there is no sacred duty to veterans.
The PC party election promise attempts to address this.

And just to be clear, that argument was first raised when the Conservatives were last in power:

Veterans don't have social contract, Ottawa says in lawsuit response
Federal government responds to class-action lawsuit aimed at New Veterans Charter
Kristen Everson · CBC News · Posted: Mar 18, 2014 5:00 PM ET | Last Updated: March 20, 2014

The federal government is arguing it does not have a social contract with veterans in response to a class-action suit brought by veterans upset with the compensation arrangement offered to wounded soldiers under the New Veterans Charter.
...

Both parties are quick to roll out the campaign promises but both are equally as likely to forget about us when they are in the seat. Any veteran or serving CAF member who makes a decision on who to vote for based on these kinds of promises is, quite simply, a chump.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Yep. The Conservatives had almost 10 years to do something.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Both parties are quick to roll out the campaign promises but both are equally as likely to forget about us when they are in the seat.

And when they were in the seat  :'(

 

[Edward Campbell]

I understand the obligation to do right by people injured and disabled during military operations.  I understand the obligation to meet commitments regarding compensation and benefits.  In some cases, like the lump-sum disability payouts, reversion to earlier policies would be wise and just.

I don't understand a particular need to have any sort of "covenant" or "special bond" with all veterans.  It's an occupation (for some, a profession) among many.

I was told, a few years back, after 2006 and the New Veterans Charter, by a source I trust, that there was HUGE concern, in the senior ranks of the bureaucracy, about the concept of the government having a "covenant" or "sacred trust" of any sort with any group. The problem was that as soon as one group, veterans as an example, are singled out for some sort of "social covenant" then there will a long line up of other "special" groups wanting equally "special" and costly treatment.

 

[bick]

Precedent has already been set with natives

 

[The Bread Guy]

Precedent has already been set with natives

"Honour of the Crown" is based, in part, on Treaties signed way back -- no such instruments in place dealing with vets, though.