PM is in a fight with veterans that he can’t win
PROGRAMS FOR VETERANS TOUGH TO MATCH LIBERAL PROMISES
You have to be pretty tone-deaf to tell a man who lost a leg in Afghanistan that the government is fighting veterans groups in courts “because they’re asking for more than we’re able to give right now.” Yet that’s exactly what the prime minister did at a town-hall in Edmonton last Thursday — a gaffe that has gone viral on social media and infuriated veterans. Brock Blaszczyk stood to ask Justin Trudeau a question, with his prosthetic leg and medals in clear view. He was a corporal in the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, who lost a leg to a roadside bomb in Afghanistan in 2009.
He asked Trudeau why his government is fighting a legal battle with veterans (the Equitas classaction lawsuit), even though the Liberal election platform said “no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation they have earned.”
Further, he complained he was not eligible for the new lifetime pension option, yet the Liberals have found money to pay for the re-integration of ISIL fighters and the $10.5-million compensation payment for Omar Khadr.
“What veterans are you talking about — those fighting for the freedoms and values you so proudly boast about, or those fighting against?” he said. “I was prepared to be killed in action. What I wasn’t prepared for, Mr. Prime Minister, was Canada turning its back on me.”
It was more devastating than anything Trudeau has faced in the House of Commons, by several degrees.
“Thank you, sir, for your passion and strength, and your justifiable frustration and anger,” the prime minister replied courteously. But then it seemed as if his frustration got the better of him — he shot back with the line about veterans asking for more than the government can afford to give.
The crowd started booing and the Teflon Prime Minister was in trouble.
“Hang on … you’re asking for honest answers,” he pleaded in vain. He tried to explain what he meant but, as any good politician knows, when you’re explaining, you’re losing.
“It was pretty disappointing,” said Blaszczyk in an interview. “He said we were asking too much but, from the personal side of things, I felt like saying ‘what did you ask from me?’ ”
The Conservatives have labelled the exchange “shameful” and “reprehensible.” They’ve released an ad that overlays the footage with examples of wasteful government spending — Omar Khadr’s settlement ($10.5 million); Trudeau’s vacation ($215,000); the cover artwork for the budget ($212,000); Liberal staff moving expenses ($220,000).
Yet the prime minister has grounds for frustration on this file.
Since taking office, the Liberals have pledged an additional $10 billion for veterans — a huge investment in financial support that the government says should leave most soldiers better off.
In future, an amputee like Blaszczyk might expect to benefit from three separate payments — two of them taxfree and index-linked. From April 2019, there will be a pain and suffering award available as a lump sum or lifetime pension, delivering a maximum of $1,150 a month. On top of that, there is another disability award for more severely injured veterans, again as a lump sum or lifetime pension, up to $1,500 a month. The third component is an income replacement benefit, which is taxable, based on 90 per cent of the veteran’s previous salary, with a one-per-cent escalator over inflation.
However, since the government was keen not to create a disincentive to work, it also involves independent testing on the ability to work and a clawback once the veteran earns $20,000 in income.
Blaszczyk said he has had a total of $320,000 in lumpsum compensation for his injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. But he does not know how much ongoing funding he will be entitled to, in part because he works, which will affect income replacement payments.
What is clear is the level of mistrust and confusion between veterans and the government — the system is insanely complicated and soldiers are wary of bureaucrats seeking reasons to disqualify or downgrade allowances.
Blaszczyk said he was ex- pecting $80,000 from the enriched Liberal formula but received half that, because the maximum amount was available only to double amputees. (He is considered 100-per-cent disabled by Veterans Affairs and has 58-percent soft tissue loss and 88-per-cent nerve damage in his remaining leg.)
It remains one of the most challenging files in government, as the Conservatives well know, and they should be wary about throwing stones.
It wasn’t so long ago that Julian Fantino stormed out of a meeting with veterans after being told he was talking “hogwash” — causing a rupture that helped sweep the Liberals to victory.
New Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan accused the Conservatives of having developed “amnesia” over their own policy failures.
In truth, there are no gods and precious few heroes on the veterans file — beyond men like Blaszczyk. Both Conservative and Liberal governments have been defendants in the Equitas case, in which Ottawa maintains it has no legal obligation to its ex-soldiers.
Trudeau may well be frustrated that his government is getting no respect for all its efforts at improving the quality of life for veterans. But he was elected on a platform that raised expectations to infinity and beyond. Former Conservative minister Erin O’Toole was right when he said Trudeau either “didn’t cost, understand or care” about what he was promising, in order to secure the veterans’ vote.
To Blaszczyk, even the Tories look good right now. “At least we weren’t given false promises,” he said.