Defence minister sidesteps watchdog’s call to compensate military’s eyes and ears in Afghanistan
Defence Minister Bill Blair is standing firm on his decision to reject immediate compensation and care for a group of former combat advisers who were denied health benefits despite their crucial role in Canada’s Afghanistan military mission. The interim ombud for the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), Robyn Hynes, conducted an investigation into the treatment of 81 Afghan Canadians who served as language and cultural advisers (LCAs) during the conflict. Hynes recommended that the LCAs be provided with compensation and physical and psychological care, but Blair defended the existing system and did not offer any additional support.
The LCAs served as the eyes and ears of Canada’s military, wearing the same uniform as CAF members and facing similar risks. However, upon returning to Canada, they were denied benefits and health coverage for the trauma they experienced because they were considered federal public servants on term contracts. Hynes emphasized that the government was responsible for ensuring that the advisers had access to the necessary benefits and services.
Despite Hynes’ recommendations, Blair maintained that the current system aligns with the spirit of the ombud’s suggestions. Hynes identified the current program as inadequate to meet the needs of the LCAs, many of whom continue to suffer from their deployment experiences. The former advisers faced challenges transitioning back to civilian life, experiencing mental health issues including signs of PTSD.
The LCAs provided critical translation services and advice on Afghan culture and conditions on the ground. They worked closely with military commanders to gather intelligence on the Taliban and warn of impending attacks. Many of the LCAs struggled with mental health issues and faced difficulties reintegrating into Canadian society. Hynes expressed concern for the well-being of the former advisers, noting that some had experienced financial ruin and strained relationships.
The ombud’s review was based on the experiences of 19 former LCAs who approached her office for assistance. Despite Blair’s assertion that the existing system is sufficient, Hynes found that many of the advisers’ claims were rejected by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). Some advisers abandoned their cases due to bureaucratic challenges and lengthy appeal processes.
Hynes urged Blair to provide independent assessments of the former advisers to determine their long-term care needs and offer immediate financial compensation. The ombud’s office reiterated its recommendations, emphasizing the inconsistency of remaining WSIB claims. While DND has made changes to ensure greater limits on civilian employment on overseas operations, Hynes found that the department lacked a policy similar to deployment limits for CAF members.
In conclusion, the plight of the former LCAs highlights the challenges faced by civilians who served in support roles during military operations. As the government continues to debate the provision of compensation and care for these individuals, it is essential to prioritize their well-being and ensure they receive the support they need to overcome the lasting effects of their service.
