Chief of the Defence Staff

I actually think its just talk. I do not think an actual policy will come into place to keep members in long term after an injury. Nevertheless, if it did for many of us who enjoyed our careers and the military community it may give us more time to adjust to new physical and/or mental issues within a familiar situation where we are not feeling like forgotten beggars.

I don't think it will ever happen either.

Sure they may be a few that are found other employment, but hasn't that always been the case.

We'll try to employ you elsewhere, is a problem I think, who is going to decide where you go? And what about the soldier who is found employment elsewhere, and never sees promotion, never has the chance to progress in career? That I would think may hurt some, or add stress to some.

If they want to help, keep medically ill soldiers in service until they have sufficient benefits in place.
If they want to employ them, they should be asked too, it should be left to the soldier to decide on whether they want to continue to be employable in service, or stay in the service not employed until sufficient benefits are in place.

 David Pugliese
Published on: October 18, 2017



Amanda Connolly of iPolitics is reporting that the pay package for Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, is increasing.

The salary range for the CDS position had been between $219,100 and $257,700. But on October 12, that salary range was boosted by the government. The CDS salary is now between $247,900 to $291,600. that raise is also backdated to July 17 of this year.

Still, Vance’s pay packet is a little behind the Judge Advocate General. Last year, Ottawa lawyer Michel Drapeau found that the JAG received a salary of $314,000.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/gen-jon-vance-the-canadian-militarys-almost-300000-man

Hush money and leading the troops properly.
Once a proper leader is in place, "the career salary" will be worth the expense...but how do you lead troops properly or follow orders from a GOC (Government of Canada) that basically misguided the Canadian population as a whole.
But wait, I could be wrong!
There is yet to be an announcement brought to you by, yours truly the GOC.  
Will they (GOC) fulfill a campaign promise?
Will it be well delivered and accepted by us (veterans).
Yet, "option" is the word that is being tossed out there.
Options are good, but when you make a black and white promise to re-instate the Pension Act, well the Veteran's community will and should hold the GOC accountable to this.
Financial security that is good for the goose is good for the gander.

With a salary as high as that, does anyone think Vance will ever go against the Grain? Absolutely not, everything that comes out of this individuals mouth has first been passed through the government channels for approval. Most if not all that comes out of this individuals mouth is coming from the bureaucrats, then is passed on to the public after being approved by the government. Those that go against the grain, (Government) usually don't last long in their position.

Look at the latest article by Guy Parent, (Veterans Ombudsman) "Veterans ombudsman says more ex-soldiers will need assisted living help." You can rest assure that what was said in that article was first passed by the government for approval, I would say all that the Ombudsman writes or say's has first passed the governments approval, this is why he still holds that position. Why he was re assigned that position after the Liberals won the election.

This is how the Veterans file is also run, the bureaucrats run the file, the Minister and the PM act on what the bureaucrats say. Take a close look at the past 10 years, and you will see what I mean.

Actually Trooper the Ombudsman was asked to "resign" as the Ombudsman when the Libs came into power. He refused and is going to finish his time (another 2/3 years).

That said I really don't think the Ombudsman gets the OK from the bureaucrats on what he writes because he has no bureaucrats he has to report to.

The Ombudsman's office is separate from VAC. They do their research. For example on the assisted living issue his office would look at what is currently on the books as a benefit. They then look at the injuries, information given to them by VAC. Then they forecast who is likely to need assisted living by comparing them to WWII and Korea veteran injuries. Once the numbers are looked at the office then writes their reports/recommendations. So if the bureaucrats are letting our Ombudsman say what they want then why do they pass on the correct info to the Ombudsman?

I know a lot of veterans think the Ombudsman's Office is useless. That is their opinion and I respect that.

In my opinion this Ombudsman is doing the job the only way that frustrates bureaucrats...research. Research they either do or they contract out to academia, accounting firms, health research forums.

For example the Cons in the last months of their time created post 65 benefits, widows benefit, and the living assistance allowance. Some would say they only created these benefits to garner votes.

Actually these allowances were created because the Ombudsman's office did an actuarial on NVC benefits and they "proved" that post 65 veterans under the NVC would automatically fall beneath the Canadian poverty income.

The actuarial done by the Ombudsman's office was the ONLY actuarial done by ANY gov't department. I know for a fact that the word "actuarial" was the new 4 letter "F" word forbidden by the gov't. Even the opposition parties, when asked to do it refused to do an actuarial.

The Ombudsman's Office also created the "red flag" application for terminal patients. The red flag application is where the application for the dieing veteran is hand delivered from department to department as a priority.

Why did the Ombudsman's Office push for this service? Veteran applications were dieing with them as their application slowly moves it's way thru the process. The Ombudsman found this to be wrong and pushed for it.

Just because this Ombudsman does not rant and rave in front of a camera doesn't mean he is not doing his job. He is by fighting the most boring war their is...a bureaucratic paper war. This is one of the main reasons Lying Justin wanted to have our Ombudsman resign his post...the OVO was/is winning the paper war.

JAFO.

Your correct, the Liberals wanted the Veterans Ombudsman along with 32 other appointees to step aside. These were appointments, appointed by Harper. The reason why the Liberals wanted this done was because they wanted to put a new appointment process in place, once in place, those 33 appointees were welcomed to re-apply.
The Letter sent to the Veterans Ombudsman to voluntary step aside was not excepted by the Ombudsman.  

Just because the Veterans Ombudsman and his team are independent as set out in the Veterans Ombudsman's mandate, that does not mean he cannot associate with Veterans, and the team working under the Minister of Veterans Affairs. (Lots of bureaucrats there)

It is a roller coaster system, they are ALL in it together. If the Ombudsman was to rock the boat, IE: Pat B. Stogran, the Liberals would find a way, to make him, go away.
The Veterans Ombudsman is playing a game of two areas, one, the Veterans, and two, the government. He is trying to balance both in keeping himself looking like a great Ombudsman. It is clear from what the Ombudsman has written in the past, mostly on the New Veterans Charter, that these topics of the Ombudsman have been given the green light from the Veterans Ministers team. Yes, he has done some good for Veterans, but he is also weak on the most important issues Veterans are facing. He lost credibility in my opinion, and from what I have been reading, lost credibility by a great deal of Veterans when he said that the NVC is better than the old pension act. He is now preparing a study that he say's will show the NVC is better than the old pension act.

In my opinion, the Veterans Ombudsman is no better then the Legion, the Minister, and those who fall under the minister. They are all milking the system, they all go with the flow, grain, beat or whatever word you want to use. You go against the grain, you fall out of the system. That's the way it works.

I'm anxiously waiting for the Ombudsman's report on the NVC being better than the old act. If it's anything like his past myth busting blogs, he will again fail in proving the merits of his report presentation.

This is my opinion, I certainly respect your opinion JAFO, and the opinion of others who see it your way. It's a discussion with two different points of views. We will wait and see how things work out for the Ombudsman, I will be keeping on eye out on him, both from his public actions moving forward, and certainly his NVC report.

Relaxing universality of service rule risks creating a system of two-tiered military service

Joining the Canadian Armed Forces is not simply a career choice. It is a commitment

By Tony Keene
Oct 21, 2017


If the Forces are going to make exceptions to the rule to allow wounded soldiers to continue to serve in desk jobs, then it will have to be carefully monitored in order to prevent the type of gaming which occurred prior to 2006.

There's an old saying that supposedly sums up what service in the Canadian Armed Forces means: "When you wear the Queen's Cloth, you do the Queen's bidding."

Simply put, this means that if you wear the uniform, you go where you are sent.

It's called universality of service, and it means that all members of the Forces must be fit and ready to serve in the field on operations at any time. While it has existed for decades, it seems to me it only began to be really enforced in 2006, when the chief of the defence staff of the day decided that the time had come to make sure that everyone was in fact capable of operational service. We were strained by our commitments in Bosnia and in Afghanistan. There simply were not enough people.

Trying to keep people in uniform

The intent of the move was to ensure there would be no more people in the Forces who could keep putting off going into the field because of chronic medical problems. There were quite a lot of them, because prior to Bosnia and Afghanistan, the Forces were suffering from low recruitment and retention. More people were leaving than coming in, and commanders at all levels tried as hard as possible to keep people in uniform by juggling postings, and cutting deals to put non-deployable people into support jobs where they could continue to serve.

But with rotation after rotation eating into the available force, people were starting to burn out. It was recognized that unless everyone took a turn, the missions could not be continued. As well, there was a morale problem, because those who were forced to go into theatre time and again while others sat safely in cubicles — protected by a doctor's note — became increasingly resentful.

The crackdown, such as it was, was not intended as a means of kicking wounded and maimed soldiers out of uniform. That was an unintended consequence caused by rigid bureaucracy.

But the closure of Veterans Affairs offices, cuts to funding in all departments (including Defence), the moving of the military pension system to the public service system and the effect the Phoenix pay system fiasco had on civil service morale all combined to create a sort of "perfect storm," which struck our wounded veterans when they were most vulnerable.

And so it came about that soldiers wounded on operations could be drop-kicked out of the Forces without regard for whether there was a safety net ready to receive them on the other side. And there was not. Even non-wounded retirees waited sometimes more than a year to get their first pension payments.

But now, Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, has indicated the Armed Forces are preparing the roll back the universality of service policy once again. Remarking specifically on the challenges faced by troops suffering with mental illness, Vance said: "We have to be able to do what we've got to do. But we also have to think in terms of the value of the individual is not just deployability."

If the military implements a more lenient policy, it is to be welcomed. It's not only the more humane option, but in terms of training and experience, it makes sense. When I was a young officer cadet in the '60s, my instructors were wartime veterans — many of them wounded or disabled in some way, yet they still had a wealth of knowledge and experience to pass onto us.

But if this change inadvertently creates a two-tier system of military service, it will once again cause a crisis of morale. Military personnel should not be sent on mission after mission, while their colleagues sit at home due for medical reasons as happened prior to 2006. A caste system such as this will destroy cohesion, morale and military effectiveness.

Careful monitoring needed

If the Forces are going to make exceptions to the rule to allow wounded soldiers to continue to serve in desk jobs, then it will have to be carefully monitored in order to prevent the type of gaming which occurred prior to 2006. The Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada will have to work more closely together to ensure that released personnel do not fall between the cracks.

(By the way, the greatest cause of time-off-work injuries in the Forces is not operational or training incidents, but sports and physical activity. And the most injurious sport is hockey. Since Forces personnel are required to maintain a high level of physical fitness, these injuries were usually considered work-related.)

While I'm not generally a fan of American war films, except sometimes for comic relief, there are some scenes that stand out. One of these is in the film Battle of the Bulge, where Charles Bronson's character walks into a field kitchen and tells the apron-wearing staff to pick up their rifles.

"But we're cooks!" exclaims one.

The answer: "Not any more."

That's the way it is.

Joining the Forces is not a career choice, and it is not, as a cringe-worthy recruiting slogan once said: "Something to do for a few years." It is a commitment. We cannot afford a two-tier system of military service.

About The Author

Tony Keene

Tony Keene was a reservist in the Canadian Armed Forces for 40 years and completed multiple overseas tours of duty. He has worked as a journalist in newspapers and broadcasting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/universality-of-service-1.4363985

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Friday, December 1, 2017

It’s been a busy year for Canada’s military.

North Korea conducted 23 missile tests this year, three of which were inter-continental ballistic missiles that the rogue nation claims have the ability to strike anywhere in North America.

In Iraq, political turmoil has forced Canadian Special Operation Forces soldiers to halt their “advise-and-assist” co-operation with Kurdish and Iraqi soldiers.

Dozens of service members found guilty of sexual misconduct were forced out of the military.

All the while, the Canadian Forces have been working to reduce the rate of military suicide, a problem that some advocates say kills up to three veterans or active troops each week.

In a wide-ranging interview with CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson, Canada’s top soldier, Chief of defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance, discussed the threat of a North Korean attack on Canada – a threat he called “theoretical” – detailed the steps he’s taken to weed out sexual harassment, and touched on the future of Canada’s involvement in Iraq.

Mercedes Stephenson: I want to start with what has been a big priority for you, and that’s Operation Honour and cracking down on sexual misconduct and sexual harassment in the Canadian forces. What kind of grade would you give yourself and the institution on how you’ve done, and what developments are next?

Gen. Jonathan Vance: We’re certainly trying very hard. Trying to learn about best practices, both in terms of preventing behaviours and changing culture. My sense is that we’ve made some significant progress in policies. I’m happy to announce, for example, that I just signed off yesterday a Canadian Forces general order that will come out that will prohibit the release of a person who is suffering trauma as a result of harmful sexual behaviour until such time that they’ve had a chance to heal, which generally means that they’ve been through all of the administrative and legal judiciary proceedings that they need to.

We had a case, and I know you talked about it last year, we’ve had cases where people have been released before they’ve had the conditions set for them to actually heal, which is akin to releasing someone for medical reasons because a wound hasn’t healed yet and you haven’t done all the things you need to do with a wound to help it heal. So I’m proud of that. That’ll be coming out in the next few days.

North Korea – it’s something that people are talking about, they’re thinking about every single day. They’re wondering, what are the Canadian Forces doing to prepare if you’ve yet called back into action there, which is possible. The war isn’t over, we’re still a combatant. What does that look like, and are you prepared to defend Canadians here at home?

Well we’re always prepared to defend Canadians here at home within the means that we have and with allies. So to take a large geopolitical look, what are we doing, we’re doing everything every one of allies are doing, which is part of an international community that has condemned the behaviour of North Korea and in effect has put in place very effective deterrents.

There’s one thing for North Korea to be developing a nuclear capability, which they seem bound and determined to do, that is a problem that the international community will continue to deal with diplomatically or otherwise. There’s also the threat of it being used.

It is very clear to me and I’m sure as clear to North Korea that the use of a nuclear weapon against Canada or any of our allies is being deterred, like any other war-like act is deterred. There would be significant and severe consequences to North Korea if they did that. And they know that.

And so Canada is a part of that. We are diplomatically very much in the vanguard on this. North Korea knows that there would be consequences, militarily and otherwise, if they were to attack someone with a nuclear weapon. And our preparations, as we do for any number of crises around the world, continue. We have well-trained forces ready to conduct operations where the government would have us conduct operations.

What would that look like, possibly, for Canada? Likely not a ground war. Maybe an air war. Have you looked at the possibilities of what Canada could be asked to contribute?

Not specifically. I think that what we tend to do is maintain a generic capacity to respond with high-readiness, well-equipped forces. It would be a waste of time at this juncture in terms of my military opinion to try to do anything other than be generally ready to respond. And we have the capability to deploy, we have the capability to operate from Canada, we have the capability to operate within the region.

Missile defence is something a lot of people are wondering about because we now know North Korea is shooting missiles higher, further, longer than they ever have before. They can reach North America. Canada is not part of missile defence, but we are part of NORAD. I know that’s a politically led discussion, but is that something the military is looking at as well? Are there conversations with your American allies about what happens if they have to shoot down a missile over Canada?

There’s a lot of things in that question. The first premise I think I have to challenge you on is you categorically stated they can reach North America. That’s an academic argument at this point in time. They haven’t demonstrated that. The tests that they’ve done are absolutely approaching the possibility that that will happen. So we’re not there yet. The threat is emerging. It’s emerging faster and faster, but it’s not there yet. It’s theoretical at this juncture.

That said, it is an emerging ,clear and present danger, not just to those within North America, but elsewhere within the region.

So I would say the essence of your question is what do we do in NORAD as a result of this – of a U.S. shoot-down. We exercise every year consequence management to do with a range of threats for things that could happen to Canada and inside North America. This is but one. And we’ve exercised repeatedly what would happen if a weapon struck North America. So it’s consequence management, largely protecting Canadians, responding to that. There would be a whole other set of decisions that would be sheer speculation at this juncture because the international environment would be gearing up for the response, and Canada would be a part of that and there would be decisions made by the government of Canada as to what would occur or not.

And so a lot of the discussion right now around continental defence really just points straight to BMD. I’m interested in the long-term discussion that is pointed to in the policy about continental defence over the long term. Being able to deal holistically with a number of threats and ensuring that we have the capability to deal with them effectively when they emerge.

Iraq – I have to ask you. Canadian Special Operations Forces, are they still contained at the base? Is there any review that you’re going to bring them home? How long does the situation there need to remain unstable before you question that mission?

The Iraq mission is more than Special Operations Forces. There’s a lot going on there. We’ve got air power, we’ve got the roll-through hospital, we’ve got the helicopters. There’s a lot going on. We’ve got people in Baghdad helping at the ministerial level. So it would be unfair, I think, to have Iraq simply cast as Special Operations Forces.

It is, and we know it, a complex political situation inside an already complex, violent situation. The defeat of Daesh (the Islamic State, or ISIS) in terms of its organized capacity to fight where we were is largely over. But it’s not over with Daesh. Daesh is not fully defeated at this juncture. So we have paused operations. We’re not contained to the base. It’s not quite as dramatic as that. But we’re not advising and assisting any forces at this juncture. That’s what the Special Operations Forces principle effort was supposed to be when we deployed. It’s been done superbly well up to this point in time. And now we are evaluating the situation. Will ISIL re-emerge in a different form? And what might we do about that along with the coalition?

We’re also looking at doing reconnaissance and determining what the next set of tasks will be. Whether they be building partner capacity inside the Iraqi security forces or otherwise. It is a complex political situation, but Canada, I think, is absolutely comfortable with the idea that we support a unified Iraq into the future. And so that’s what we’re doing. We were not in Kurdistan to make a Kurdistan. We were there because it was a practical place for us to be to deal with the threat.

Suicide has been a huge topic, not only within the Canadian Armed Forces but society talking about the concern over our troops and our veterans. Advocates are saying they’re seeing as many as three suicides a week between serving troops and veterans, that they don’t see the numbers decreasing. I know you’ve taken a number of steps to try to address that. Are you seeing any kind of success with these strategies?

Well the joint suicide prevention strategy just came out. I think we’ve been doing a lot that’s already in it for a while. It’s hard to tell when you meet success. It’s hard to tell when you’ve prevented a suicide. All you see are the suicides that occur. I think we’re getting more and more people into mental health care. That’s important.

And I think that although Veterans Affairs will look after accounting for the veterans that commit suicide, inside the Canadian Forces I can’t say it’s a success at this juncture. We still have people commit suicide while in uniform. We want to prevent it. We want to get to zero.

So I can’t claim any success. The numbers are out this year from the surgeon general. It’s a difficult thing to talk about, because it’s not numbers. These are real people, real families, there’s devastation in the wake of a suicide. All I can tell you is that we’re going to keep trying. We’ll keep applying effort, get people into mental health care and do everything we can using best practices and partnering with as many people and as many organizations as we have to try to prevent the suicides.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-top-soldier-talks-north-korea-isis-and-military-suicides-in-year-end-interview-1.3704267