Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Could you please write those concerns to the committee and send that through the clerk? Thank you very much.
Madam Northey, I'd like to hear what you have to say concerning the effectiveness of VAC. I think it might be true that they're not plan-centric, outcome driven.
I would just make note of this brainstorming here, so you know. There is the law that has services and benefits. On the other side, you have the veterans who are recipients of these delivery services or benefits, and you have VAC in the middle.
I'm mean I'm just going out there to try to find solutions. When I meet with VAC employees, they're all good people. I might say bad things right now, but it has nothing to do with the people working there.
Sometimes it seems that the ministry is more of an organization there to deal with the restraint budget and to allocate, in the most restrictive manner, the allowances and benefits and the service delivery. It seems it is that instead of being an organization which has to make sure that the people who most need it will receive the benefits and services and that they reach out to the most possible number of veterans.
In a way, its logic is more serving the state than it is serving the beneficiaries, who are the veterans. I think that's what you're saying.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
You have mentioned your service delivery model a number of times. In you text, you talk about a “fundamental change”. You have listed a number of aspects of that fundamental change, but could you also tell us about other aspects of the fundamental change that you may not have had the opportunity to tell us about until now. I assume that you have a specific list of the fundamental changes that are needed.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madam Migneault and Madam Murray, thank you very much for being here.
I'm just brainstorming on my question, so I'll try to figure it out. For six months I've been thinking a lot about all the issues for veterans. Last week I think I started to understand something, and what you said today corresponds to this vision that came into my mind. You talked about stopping the circus, blowing it up, and starting from scratch, and then talking about the real issues.
What I've been seeing since the beginning is that there's the stakeholders group and there's the veterans. There are two things.
Also, in terms of what the ministry does, there are also two things, the financial benefits and the services. I think since the new charter of 2006, we are in a paradigm, which is to either create new benefits or increase existing benefits and allowances. That is good, and it had to be done, but it seems to me that this is kind of the circus, because even if it was done under the previous Conservative government—and I was wondering why, when we have all these new benefits, veterans still say we did nothing—I now see this new government following our path and just doing the easy stuff, which is to have new benefits and increase allowances.
I want to talk about the real issue, which might not be the real issue, but I'm trying to find out now.
Madam Murray, you talked about structural flaws in the ministry. I'm wondering if maybe it's not flaws but it's the structural culture of this ministry. I have a straightforward question, because veterans have been talking to me about this. Are you aware of non-official rules that the ministry is imposing on its case managers? I'll listen to you first, please, Madam Murray.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Structurally broke, or maybe structurally they want it to be that way also. That's what I want to find out, actually.
Results: 1 - 4 of 4