Colwood BC provides the model for dependent health care in the military. When Colwood was losing doctors the mayor didn’t sit back and wait for doctors to decide to move to Colwood and open a practise. He and council decided to,open a city clinic and hire the necessary doctors. The city does the administration and bills the province. The doctors are not bothered by administrating a practise, they simply provide health care to their patients.
It is my view, provided by 26 years of moving a family 10 times, literally from coast to coast and stops in between, that this is a perfect model for bases in Canada. They could establish Dependent Health Clinics, hire doctors and administrators to run the clinic and treat dependents.
We need new thinking. This is easier and requires far less high level meetings and committees than trying to change the system through the various levels of government bureaucracy. The Surgeon-General could oversee the establishment of such clinics across all installations as it would work on even smaller installations.
P.S. Having such clinics would also make it easier to transfer medical records between clinics after postings.
This is a great article. Current military posting system was designed when (a) military spouses didn’t work (b) health care was easily and quickly accessible “off the shelf” in all provinces. Need to design a system that works for today’s world where these aren’t true.
The prerequisite for any of these good things is a government, chain of command, and defence bureaucracy that actually values and honours Canadian warriors.
Tell me. How many Conservative or Progressive Conservative governments have formed the federal government since 1984?
I'll help you out:
* Two Brian Mulroney majorities,
* two Stephen Harper minorities, and
* one Stephen Harper majority.
That's 18 years out of the last 42.
As such, surely this is a problem that has been caused by successive federal governments, regardless of political stripe?
What's more, as I suggested elsewhere in this commentary forum, the problems are also caused by the refusal of successive governments in ALL provinces to drop restrictions on sharing information, drop protectionist requirements on nurses, doctors and other professionals who move from one province to another, etc.
This is an attitude problem. Liberals abolished RCN and RCAF, Conservatives brought them back. Liberals made the infamous “Soldiers in Our Streets” ad, Conservatives wanted the military more visible. The Liberals brought DEI to the military. The reality is, since Pierre Trudeau’s days, the Liberals have always disliked Canadian warriors. Underfunding is bipartisan. Personal distaste is not.
I won't argue with the notion that both Trudeau's were not friends of the military. JT was obliged to do more, but in those days, not all that long ago, he calculated, correctly, that many Canadians did not give a damn.
I say "correctly", not because I agreed with his views, but because the disinterest in the military, on the part of some voters, and downright hostility on the part of others, was likely understood and thus exploited by the younger Trudeau.
You're right in that many Canadians didn't care about keeping the military strong. It's a naive attitude that ignores the many realities in the world. A naiveté that assumes war will never touch us and if it does 'someone' will take care of us. A strong leader would realize the importance of maintaining decent levels of defence and help his people understand that need.
This was an excellent op-ed. All of the observations put on the table by Stephanie Shapiro were spot on.
I would add that ALL of the points she made are, in one way or another, further evidence of the need to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. That includes particular rules pertaining to the professional qualifications and certification of professionals from one part or another of Canada.
Let's be clear. Almost all of this is driven by protectionism and lobbying undertaken by provincially based professional associations, or companies that do not want to open up to more competition from other parts of the country.
Provinces must change the way they deal with this, and the only really effective way to do so is to have provincial political parties campaign during elections on the elimination of these barriers, including those that make life more difficult for the families of our military personnel.
If we cannot have free trade amongst the provinces, well, I just don't know what to say any longer. I made the mistake of believing the premiers last year when eliminating trade barriers was very much an elbow's up bit of performance art.
Premiers are one of the biggest internal sicknesses we have. They all treat their province like its own country and constantly pander Us V Them mentality . i would argue they are a bigger problem than First Nations groups arguing for more consultation and treaty rights.
I've been frustrated for decades by the pettiness of successive generations of premiers. While it would be tempting to argue that the current dynamic was born with the advent of the first Parti Quebecois government in 1976, in reality the dynamic was born before Confederation.
Sir John A. wanted a unitary state, but his peers, most notably Sir George-Étienne Cartier, demanded a "Confederation" that enabled governance powers to be shared. In the 19th Century, however, the "Fathers of Confederation" were well aware of the near failure of the "American experiment" (the US Civil War), and were determined to ensure that regional governments would not be powerful enough to secede.
Ironically, the legal and political evolution of our federation has made provinces much more powerful than their counterparts in the United States (individual state governments).
There is nothing we can do about that. Nonetheless, the federal government retains significant powers, including strong fiscal powers, which future Prime Ministers could, if they wished, bring to bear to "bring provinces into line".
There are big risks in that (look what's happening in Alberta, and the unwelcome mention, again, of separatism in Quebec). But those federal powers exist...
Ultimately, my view is that Canadians living in each of the provinces should be encouraged to push their own provincial governments to shift away from petty localism towards a more congenial policy WRT the federation.
‘That includes particular rules pertaining to the professional qualifications and certification of professionals from one part or another of Canada.’
And not just the qualifications. My wife, a nurse, not only had the hassle of having to re-register on each of the three occasions that we changed province due to my posting but she also lost her seniority and had to start ‘from the beginning’ again; i.e., entry-level positions, casual or part-time jobs, even when full-time positions were available but offered only to those union- or association-affiliated members who had ‘paid their dues’ and not just come from away, etc.
It would be tempting to blame "the politicians" or "the provincial bureaucrats" for this.
However, the truth is that successive generations of Canadians in each province have either been ignorant of their passive support for this (prior to the current surge of pro-Canadian sentiment, most of us were content to "let it slide"), or somehow convinced by "professional associations" (essentially lobbyists) that all this was about protecting the citizens of [fill in name of province] by "protecting standards".
The only way it stops, in my view, is if voting citizens make this an issue during upcoming elections in every province, so that politicians and political parties are forced to accept the need for dropping all of these ridiculous, and very expensive, protectionist regulations.
Somehow, though, it doesn't seem that this is "top of mind" in Quebec, where an election campaign is in process. Furthermore, I'll bet you that BC's current self-styled "Captain Canada" (Premier Eby) will not really talk about this issue, either, if (when) he calls a snap election.
There are only two ways to eliminate trade barriers. One is to argue that they hurt both sides, which is a bit difficult in the age of trade retaliation. The other is to argue that Canadians are a people, and should have solidarity for each other, which is a little difficult in the age of mass immigration. Not to mention that generations of Ottawa corruption have poisoned that well.
Any serious study of macroeconomics will show that trade barriers ARE harmful, as they raise prices, reduce competition and decrease innovation.
On the issue of what makes Canadians "a people", yours is the argument of an ethnic nationalist. Canada is a polity based on a foundation of principles.
Yes, successive Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have not paid enough attention to civic education. I would argue that the provincial governments have also been remiss, and have also greatly indulged in amplifying regional identity and grievances that did not exist a century ago.
For the record, I was born and grew up in Alberta. My parents were both immigrants.
I have never bought into the "pauvre Alberta" theology, or the "I am a [fill in ethnic or religious affiliation of choice] first, a Canadian second" idea.
There is but one place for me, and it is all of Canada.
Well, I certainly agree that trade barriers are net negative economically. Although they have redistributive effects that can be beneficial in local ways.
Having briefly worked for the Canadian Forces Housing Agency I am reasonably familiar with the benign neglect of services to veterans in the Canadian budget process. It faithfully reflects Rudyard Kipling’s poem “Tommy” which should be required reading for Canadas Ministers of defence.
When I periodically come back to Canada from the US I am sickened to tears by the contrast between their treatment of current and veteran Armed Forces members and that of Canadians. I am close friends with several vets in the USA and while it is not perfect they all have access to the VA which has abundant hospitals and staff and therapy. And the culture that says you thank any vet for their service, stand up if they are in uniform or wear vet insignia, pay for their meals or at least coffees, is pretty much universal. All I hear about in Canada is that the only quick service for veterans with PTSD is MAID.
I would suggest that establishing medical service levels in Canada VA equivalent to those in the US would go a long way to attracting qualified members to the forces. And it would allow the Liberals to take the costs transferred from Medicare payments and count these towards the 5 percent NATO contribution target at the stroke of a bureaucratic pen.
Well stated and long overdue. Care and concern for the total well being of the honorable Canadians who put their lives on the line must be a priority in any plan to enhance military capability. Treatment has been nothing short of shoddy since the Korean War- no matter what Government has been in power.
I am a veteran of the Canadian Army with 38 years service - 29 regular army, cumulative 9 army reserve. Our family has three kids and they are all raised as army brats, in Canada, the UK an Germany.
Let us not lose sight of what a military is for. It is for managing violence on behalf of the state. To do that, it must be recruited, trained, equipped, led and provided with coherent and effective doctrine, in accordance with governmental direction that is cogent and effective.
It is NOT a social experiment in gender, identify, disabilities etc., an economic boondoggle, or a collection of stakeholders, any of which may hold a veto.
It MUST make the best use of its resources. This includes supporting families, recruiting and retaining folks from as wide a collection of Canadians as is possible, ensuring the best use of the human material available by training and promoting on merit, buying the best affordable kit to execute the doctrine I mentioned above.
Family support is important, for sure. But our family survived without it, for my service largely pre-dated the structure of MFRCs that exists now. We survived because the regimental family supported us.
Further, in the end, soldiers go where they are ordered. Joining your regiment in Shilo, Manitoba is not the best support for families. That would be going to Ottawa or Edmonton. But neither of those are good training areas.
So, place all the social supports in their place. Important, but secondary to the requirement to effectively manage violence on behalf of the state, and all the operational details that are thus encompassed.
For me, a veteran with a son now in for more than a decade, the CF has been put through a form of forced progressivism. A human resources transformation has occurred, centered around "reconstitution," which prioritizes sweeping culture change, retaining existing personnel, and modernizing recruitment pipelines.
That HR approach needs to go. The military is not a crown corporation, nor is it the public service. It is an institution whose main purpose is to close with, and destroy the enemy. Full stop.
Can anyone please show my how the 'reconstitution' will help my section win the firefight and then fight through the objective."
What has been done to the CF is pathetic. Any general who did not resign over this is a slug.
What a perfect way to test out smoother and barrier-free interprovincial accreditation rules for spouses' professions! Create a law that carves-out for military families. Like a trial run.
I just retired today from the Navy. One thing I wish we could implement is a Canadian Health card, a Canadian Drivers license, Canadian Professional Designation, and Canadian auto license. That would make our lives a little bit easier.
Fixing the military housing and infrastructure situation is something that can happen RFN!
Getting this done would be of great assistance in the long term resilience building as well as reducing the housing crisis in many centres proximate to CFB installations. The answers to this problem have been apparent for years but the gonads to say "get it done!" Have been lacking and I suspect some paper pusher has created three more signature lines for authorization because we wouldn't want to do the right thing if that was the only motivation!
Colwood BC provides the model for dependent health care in the military. When Colwood was losing doctors the mayor didn’t sit back and wait for doctors to decide to move to Colwood and open a practise. He and council decided to,open a city clinic and hire the necessary doctors. The city does the administration and bills the province. The doctors are not bothered by administrating a practise, they simply provide health care to their patients.
It is my view, provided by 26 years of moving a family 10 times, literally from coast to coast and stops in between, that this is a perfect model for bases in Canada. They could establish Dependent Health Clinics, hire doctors and administrators to run the clinic and treat dependents.
We need new thinking. This is easier and requires far less high level meetings and committees than trying to change the system through the various levels of government bureaucracy. The Surgeon-General could oversee the establishment of such clinics across all installations as it would work on even smaller installations.
P.S. Having such clinics would also make it easier to transfer medical records between clinics after postings.
This is a great article. Current military posting system was designed when (a) military spouses didn’t work (b) health care was easily and quickly accessible “off the shelf” in all provinces. Need to design a system that works for today’s world where these aren’t true.
The prerequisite for any of these good things is a government, chain of command, and defence bureaucracy that actually values and honours Canadian warriors.
The Liberals have no desire or ability to do so.
QUOTE
The Liberals have no desire or ability to do so.
END QUOTE
Tell me. How many Conservative or Progressive Conservative governments have formed the federal government since 1984?
I'll help you out:
* Two Brian Mulroney majorities,
* two Stephen Harper minorities, and
* one Stephen Harper majority.
That's 18 years out of the last 42.
As such, surely this is a problem that has been caused by successive federal governments, regardless of political stripe?
What's more, as I suggested elsewhere in this commentary forum, the problems are also caused by the refusal of successive governments in ALL provinces to drop restrictions on sharing information, drop protectionist requirements on nurses, doctors and other professionals who move from one province to another, etc.
This is an attitude problem. Liberals abolished RCN and RCAF, Conservatives brought them back. Liberals made the infamous “Soldiers in Our Streets” ad, Conservatives wanted the military more visible. The Liberals brought DEI to the military. The reality is, since Pierre Trudeau’s days, the Liberals have always disliked Canadian warriors. Underfunding is bipartisan. Personal distaste is not.
I won't argue with the notion that both Trudeau's were not friends of the military. JT was obliged to do more, but in those days, not all that long ago, he calculated, correctly, that many Canadians did not give a damn.
I say "correctly", not because I agreed with his views, but because the disinterest in the military, on the part of some voters, and downright hostility on the part of others, was likely understood and thus exploited by the younger Trudeau.
You're right in that many Canadians didn't care about keeping the military strong. It's a naive attitude that ignores the many realities in the world. A naiveté that assumes war will never touch us and if it does 'someone' will take care of us. A strong leader would realize the importance of maintaining decent levels of defence and help his people understand that need.
This was an excellent op-ed. All of the observations put on the table by Stephanie Shapiro were spot on.
I would add that ALL of the points she made are, in one way or another, further evidence of the need to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. That includes particular rules pertaining to the professional qualifications and certification of professionals from one part or another of Canada.
Let's be clear. Almost all of this is driven by protectionism and lobbying undertaken by provincially based professional associations, or companies that do not want to open up to more competition from other parts of the country.
Provinces must change the way they deal with this, and the only really effective way to do so is to have provincial political parties campaign during elections on the elimination of these barriers, including those that make life more difficult for the families of our military personnel.
If we cannot have free trade amongst the provinces, well, I just don't know what to say any longer. I made the mistake of believing the premiers last year when eliminating trade barriers was very much an elbow's up bit of performance art.
Premiers are one of the biggest internal sicknesses we have. They all treat their province like its own country and constantly pander Us V Them mentality . i would argue they are a bigger problem than First Nations groups arguing for more consultation and treaty rights.
I've been frustrated for decades by the pettiness of successive generations of premiers. While it would be tempting to argue that the current dynamic was born with the advent of the first Parti Quebecois government in 1976, in reality the dynamic was born before Confederation.
Sir John A. wanted a unitary state, but his peers, most notably Sir George-Étienne Cartier, demanded a "Confederation" that enabled governance powers to be shared. In the 19th Century, however, the "Fathers of Confederation" were well aware of the near failure of the "American experiment" (the US Civil War), and were determined to ensure that regional governments would not be powerful enough to secede.
Ironically, the legal and political evolution of our federation has made provinces much more powerful than their counterparts in the United States (individual state governments).
There is nothing we can do about that. Nonetheless, the federal government retains significant powers, including strong fiscal powers, which future Prime Ministers could, if they wished, bring to bear to "bring provinces into line".
There are big risks in that (look what's happening in Alberta, and the unwelcome mention, again, of separatism in Quebec). But those federal powers exist...
Ultimately, my view is that Canadians living in each of the provinces should be encouraged to push their own provincial governments to shift away from petty localism towards a more congenial policy WRT the federation.
NB: I know, easier said than done.
For me, this is because we are a confederation rather than a republic I suspect.
‘That includes particular rules pertaining to the professional qualifications and certification of professionals from one part or another of Canada.’
And not just the qualifications. My wife, a nurse, not only had the hassle of having to re-register on each of the three occasions that we changed province due to my posting but she also lost her seniority and had to start ‘from the beginning’ again; i.e., entry-level positions, casual or part-time jobs, even when full-time positions were available but offered only to those union- or association-affiliated members who had ‘paid their dues’ and not just come from away, etc.
That sounds awful.
Stories like yours just make my ears burn.
It would be tempting to blame "the politicians" or "the provincial bureaucrats" for this.
However, the truth is that successive generations of Canadians in each province have either been ignorant of their passive support for this (prior to the current surge of pro-Canadian sentiment, most of us were content to "let it slide"), or somehow convinced by "professional associations" (essentially lobbyists) that all this was about protecting the citizens of [fill in name of province] by "protecting standards".
The only way it stops, in my view, is if voting citizens make this an issue during upcoming elections in every province, so that politicians and political parties are forced to accept the need for dropping all of these ridiculous, and very expensive, protectionist regulations.
Somehow, though, it doesn't seem that this is "top of mind" in Quebec, where an election campaign is in process. Furthermore, I'll bet you that BC's current self-styled "Captain Canada" (Premier Eby) will not really talk about this issue, either, if (when) he calls a snap election.
Sigh.
There are only two ways to eliminate trade barriers. One is to argue that they hurt both sides, which is a bit difficult in the age of trade retaliation. The other is to argue that Canadians are a people, and should have solidarity for each other, which is a little difficult in the age of mass immigration. Not to mention that generations of Ottawa corruption have poisoned that well.
We disagree fundamentally on this, @AE.
Any serious study of macroeconomics will show that trade barriers ARE harmful, as they raise prices, reduce competition and decrease innovation.
On the issue of what makes Canadians "a people", yours is the argument of an ethnic nationalist. Canada is a polity based on a foundation of principles.
Yes, successive Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have not paid enough attention to civic education. I would argue that the provincial governments have also been remiss, and have also greatly indulged in amplifying regional identity and grievances that did not exist a century ago.
For the record, I was born and grew up in Alberta. My parents were both immigrants.
I have never bought into the "pauvre Alberta" theology, or the "I am a [fill in ethnic or religious affiliation of choice] first, a Canadian second" idea.
There is but one place for me, and it is all of Canada.
Well, I certainly agree that trade barriers are net negative economically. Although they have redistributive effects that can be beneficial in local ways.
Having briefly worked for the Canadian Forces Housing Agency I am reasonably familiar with the benign neglect of services to veterans in the Canadian budget process. It faithfully reflects Rudyard Kipling’s poem “Tommy” which should be required reading for Canadas Ministers of defence.
When I periodically come back to Canada from the US I am sickened to tears by the contrast between their treatment of current and veteran Armed Forces members and that of Canadians. I am close friends with several vets in the USA and while it is not perfect they all have access to the VA which has abundant hospitals and staff and therapy. And the culture that says you thank any vet for their service, stand up if they are in uniform or wear vet insignia, pay for their meals or at least coffees, is pretty much universal. All I hear about in Canada is that the only quick service for veterans with PTSD is MAID.
I would suggest that establishing medical service levels in Canada VA equivalent to those in the US would go a long way to attracting qualified members to the forces. And it would allow the Liberals to take the costs transferred from Medicare payments and count these towards the 5 percent NATO contribution target at the stroke of a bureaucratic pen.
I
Well stated and long overdue. Care and concern for the total well being of the honorable Canadians who put their lives on the line must be a priority in any plan to enhance military capability. Treatment has been nothing short of shoddy since the Korean War- no matter what Government has been in power.
I am a veteran of the Canadian Army with 38 years service - 29 regular army, cumulative 9 army reserve. Our family has three kids and they are all raised as army brats, in Canada, the UK an Germany.
Let us not lose sight of what a military is for. It is for managing violence on behalf of the state. To do that, it must be recruited, trained, equipped, led and provided with coherent and effective doctrine, in accordance with governmental direction that is cogent and effective.
It is NOT a social experiment in gender, identify, disabilities etc., an economic boondoggle, or a collection of stakeholders, any of which may hold a veto.
It MUST make the best use of its resources. This includes supporting families, recruiting and retaining folks from as wide a collection of Canadians as is possible, ensuring the best use of the human material available by training and promoting on merit, buying the best affordable kit to execute the doctrine I mentioned above.
Family support is important, for sure. But our family survived without it, for my service largely pre-dated the structure of MFRCs that exists now. We survived because the regimental family supported us.
Further, in the end, soldiers go where they are ordered. Joining your regiment in Shilo, Manitoba is not the best support for families. That would be going to Ottawa or Edmonton. But neither of those are good training areas.
So, place all the social supports in their place. Important, but secondary to the requirement to effectively manage violence on behalf of the state, and all the operational details that are thus encompassed.
For me, a veteran with a son now in for more than a decade, the CF has been put through a form of forced progressivism. A human resources transformation has occurred, centered around "reconstitution," which prioritizes sweeping culture change, retaining existing personnel, and modernizing recruitment pipelines.
That HR approach needs to go. The military is not a crown corporation, nor is it the public service. It is an institution whose main purpose is to close with, and destroy the enemy. Full stop.
Can anyone please show my how the 'reconstitution' will help my section win the firefight and then fight through the objective."
What has been done to the CF is pathetic. Any general who did not resign over this is a slug.
What a perfect way to test out smoother and barrier-free interprovincial accreditation rules for spouses' professions! Create a law that carves-out for military families. Like a trial run.
I just retired today from the Navy. One thing I wish we could implement is a Canadian Health card, a Canadian Drivers license, Canadian Professional Designation, and Canadian auto license. That would make our lives a little bit easier.
Mr. Prime Minister, military family members should be considered as associate members of the military, right?
Great article.
Fixing the military housing and infrastructure situation is something that can happen RFN!
Getting this done would be of great assistance in the long term resilience building as well as reducing the housing crisis in many centres proximate to CFB installations. The answers to this problem have been apparent for years but the gonads to say "get it done!" Have been lacking and I suspect some paper pusher has created three more signature lines for authorization because we wouldn't want to do the right thing if that was the only motivation!
Excellent article and yes, agree with every point written.