Veterans’ access to benefits, services a persistent problem, says ombudsman
2018 report card says gov’t making progress on most issues, but 18 recommendations left untouched
OTTAWA — Canada’s veterans ombudsman says that while the federal government has implemented a number of his recommendations over the years, veterans are facing difficulty accessing some benefits and services to which they’ve long been entitled.
Guy Parent released his 2018 report card Tuesday detailing the government’s response to recommendations made by the ombudsman’s office over the past 10 years.
Parent says that progress has been made on the veterans file since his update last year, adding that the government has addressed 72 per cent of his recommendations, or 46 out of 64.
“The 72 per cent of recommendations implemented over the last 10 years show that it’s consistent. We’re not moving fast, but we’re moving forward,” Parent said in an interview.
Parent said the most important recommendations of the remaining 18 left untouched include ensuring that veterans are being reimbursed for treatment expenses under the Veterans Well-being Act, and that reimbursement is retroactive to the date of the original application.
This means that some veterans are going without treatment because they’re not likely to pay for their medical expenses out of pocket when faced with lengthy delays getting reimbursed.
“Under the old pension act . . . these health-care expenses were paid for retroactively to the time that the people actually applied for benefits,” said Parent.
“The City of Kelowna should reconsider approving this development proposal and bring in stricter regulation of short-term rentals to benefit working and middle-class families, instead of real estate speculators who currently reap the rewards of rising land values,” Smith writes.
It’s unusual for the BCGEU to weigh in on a specific Kelowna development project. Smith’s letter was one of a handful of critical pieces of correspondence on the Brooklyn received by the city in advance of last night’s public hearing at which the fate of the project was to be determined by council.
Other letter writers also raised concern about the impact of shortterm
rentals, citing issues such as excessive noise and the tight market faced by long-term renters.
“You are all well aware of the desperate need for long-term rental units, but this proposal will not satisfy those needs,” wrote Peter Kerr, who identified himself as an occupant of a basement suite.
City planners had recommended council approve the Brooklyn, saying it conformed to the official community plan goals of economic development and promotion of more vibrancy in the downtown area.
Another item on last night’s agenda, a 15-storey tower on Cedar Avenue just west of Pandosy Street, had received more positive public feedback. Eleven people wrote letters of support, while five people asked council to reject the proposal.
Supporters said it was an attractive-looking building that would bring construction jobs and additional tax revenue.
“The Jenga building will move the Pandosy neighbourhood to a more modern standard and will go a long way to making the neighbourhood more walkable and inviting,” Bob Bishop wrote.
But critics noted the site had a maximum building height of seven storeys and appealed for council to deny the variance permit necessary for the project to go ahead.
“(This) is a terrible precedent that will in turn lead Pandosy to becoming a hub of large skyscrapers instead of a mix of single- and multiple-family dwellings,” wrote Michael and Annalee LeFeuvre.
Council’s decision on the two highrise proposals was not available by press deadline.