By Harold Leduc
Monday to Thursday (Oct. 5-9, 2015) Veteran Watch will provide a summary of our policy report card on each of the political parties. You don’t need to compare policy positions; Veteran Watch has done it for you. Today, Veteran Watch examines the Green Party
Does the proposal fall inline with the spirit of parity of the recently re-affirmed social covenant?
It does in part. There is a commitment to treat all veterans as one, and move away from a for-profit medical insurance attitude (SISIP). The proposal commits to reopening VAC offices
The proposal fails to meet the spirit of the social covenant by assimilating the unique unlimited liability nature of military service with RCMP service. This is not supported in law and devalues both military and RCMP service and sacrifice.
Does the proposed policy meet veterans and their families needs?
There is a commitment to rewrite the NVC to meet veterans’ needs however details are not available to determine to what extent.
Is a return to the Pension Act contemplated?
Yes, there is a commitment to re-establishing the Pension Act.
Does the proposal address the difficulties veterans have in accessing benefits?
Yes, the proposal emphasizes the benefit of the doubt and speaks to resolving addressing the denial culture at both VAC and VRAB.
Does the proposal acknowledge current court actions?
Yes, there is a commitment to support the class action lawsuits currently put forward by Miller Thompson, supported by Equitas and to end the SISIP claw back.
Based on the available information, the Green Party’s policy offers promise in addressing the most controversial concerns of veterans and their families by the return of the Pension Act. The major drawback of the policy is including the RCMP in a social covenant established uniquely for military veterans and their families. RCMP veterans would be best served by a separate Green Party policy.
NOTE: Colours fill the boxes next to each question. Green indicates a positive response that will likely meet the full needs of veterans. Yellow indicates a somewhat positive policy but one that fails to meet the full requirement. Red is a complete failure to meet the needs of veterans. Colours that fade from green to yellow indicate an initial positive response but one that may require more research or clarification. Colours that fade from yellow to red indicate some redeeming factors within policy but one that might end in failure.