# Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"



## dogger1936

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/exclusive+injured+canadian+soldiers+suing+ottawa+over+benefits/6442638939/story.html

Maj you have my utmost respect. 

A group of injured Canadian soldiers is launching a class-action lawsuit against the federal government over services and benefits for veterans.

The soldiers say Ottawa's treatment of them is shameful, and a newer veterans charter – touted as an improvement – Is actually worse than the old one.

Maj. Mark Campbell is one of these veterans. He lost both of his legs in June 2008 after an improvised explosive device detonated beneath him during a Taliban ambush in Afghanistan.

His left leg was all but vapourized in the blast. His right leg barely hung on by a few strands of shredded bone and tissue. 

Today, he suffers phantom limb pain where his left leg below the knee used to be – an excruciating kind of torment so severe, he needs methadone to manage it. He's on maximum allowable doses of other pain medications, and their list of side-effects is long. "But I have no choice," the Edmonton father of two says. "It's that, or I don't want to live."

Campbell also has "severe abdominal scarring, ruptured right eardrum, and traumatic brain injury, which has resulted in short-term memory loss."

He says learned to live with his disability, but not with the way he's been treated by the government.

"I can take being legless. That's not too hard to take," he told Global News. "What's really hard to take is seeing my family falling apart, watch my wife and children – my children failing school, because we're looking at no long-term financial security."

Campbell is one of a growing number of veterans discovering their disability benefits are actually lower under the newer veterans charter, which was introduced in 2006. "(There is) 40 per cent less financial compensation over the course of my lifetime, easily."

The Equitas Society, a support group for veterans headed by Vancouver police officer Jim Scott, says the benefits have proven to be woefully inadequate. 

"The new veterans' charter has reduced the benefits to disabled soldiers by one-third for severely disabled soldiers, and to up to 90 per cent for partially disabled soldiers," Scott says, whose son was badly injured in Afghanistan.

"They have no remedy other than the courts, because they have brought this issue to Veterans Affairs Canada and have been basically with presented with spin, denial and refusal that there is a problem."

Equitas also says disabled veterans are receiving less than what civilians get under workers' compensation programs.

The group has been working for months on the class-action lawsuit, even persuading national law firm Miller Thomson to take the case for free. A suit such as this would normally cost millions of dollars.

"I'm outraged that two young men that I actually know, were so badly treated after serving our country so bravely," says lawyer Don Sorochan in Vancouver. He believes the government is not upholding its end of the bargain with veterans who risk life and limb for Canada. 

"There's a social contract which, put very simply, is to look after (soldiers), to make sure they're looked after. Now, people say what does that mean? And I'm trying to say that there's a constitutional aspect to that social contract."

The lawsuit will cite Section 15 of the Charter of Rights, which provides every Canadian with equal protection and benefit of the law, without discrimination. 

Campbell says there's no other option than the lawsuit, and is optimistic about the outcome. "We're gonna win this one too, because we're talking about natural justice."

But that success could be years away as the case winds its way through the courts. In the meantime, it will take several more weeks for lawyers to compile the lawsuit.

To avert another legal war, Equitas says it would prefer Ottawa to replace the veterans' charter.

Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | EXCLUSIVE: Injured Canadian soldiers suing Ottawa over benefits


----------



## ttlbmg

Shameful the way some of these guys are being treated, after what they've given for their country. I hope that this action does something to change the charter, although it seems as though the office of veterans affairs might need an overhaul. I hope that this can open some eyes so that people can see what these guys go through everyday.


----------



## dogger1936

ttlbmg said:
			
		

> Shameful the way some of these guys are being treated, after what they've given for their country. I hope that this action does something to change the charter, although it seems as though the office of veterans affairs might need an overhaul. I hope that this can open some eyes so that people can see what these guys go through everyday.



That Maj Cambell is one hell of a man. Coming on news and telling it how it is; and showing his injuries. Hopefully more vets get angry and go to the media. Simply asking the government hasnt worked, ombudsmen meetings hasnt worked.

More pressure like this is required.

The Equitas Society and Mr Don Sorochan; I truly thank them both for stepping in where the Royal Canadian Legion is quiet; and the government lacking any recognition of the huge problems involved with the NVC.

BZ to all.


----------



## dogger1936

From Maj Cambell down to Cpl Stoesz. Thank you from the rest of us. 

A Canadian soldier based in Shilo, Man., says he will keep speaking out about what he sees as a lack of medical and mental health services in the military, despite an order from a superior to be quiet.

Cpl. Steve Stoesz said his fight to get proper health services for injured soldiers is worse than the battle he endured in Afghanistan.

Stoesz had been ordered by a Canadian Forces superior not to do media interviews, but he said he is devastated by the lack of support.

"They broke me in the fight after, in the dealing with my own country," he told CBC News on Monday.

"The country that I fought for now has broken me."

Stoesz returned to Canada in 2008 after surviving three bomb attacks in Afghanistan and suffering speech and balance problems.

He said he is worn down by the amount of red tape he has needed to go through to get counselling, physiotherapy and other medical care.

Stoesz said he had to wait for more than three years to get surgery for some injuries.

P.O.V.
Do Canadian troops get adequate mental health services? Take our survey.

As well, he said his depression and anxiety were caused not by his tour of duty in Afghanistan, but by the years of fighting to get help from the Canadian Forces.

"The loyalty, the commitment and all that — it's a one-way street. They expect it from us but they don't give it in return," he said.

Soldier did the right thing, activist says
Retired intelligence officer Sean Bruyea, who is now a military activist, said Stoesz did the right thing by speaking out.

Stoesz's case is similar to that of other injured soldiers, and he should not be disciplined, said Bruyea.

"Steve has basically challenged a big system which feels it can still muzzle people from freedom of speech," he said.

Stoesz has not been disciplined for disobeying the order against speaking out.

For its part, the Department of National Defence would not comment on the case, saying it's a matter of privacy.

Stoesz said he plans to remain in the military, where he will keep fighting for soldiers' rights and benefits.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/07/mb-soldier-mental-health-stoesz.html


----------



## Nemo888

83.3% of CBC's readers think Vets are not getting adequate benefits. What kind of douche bag do you have to be to have the political slam dunk of helping Vets with 83% support FROM THE LEFT and to be too damn tight fisted to spend a few bucks. Bean counting, troop hating mofos. Is there anything slimier than a politician?


----------



## Wookilar

Snr bureaucrat.


----------



## ArmyRick

Absolutely! Would not want to touch the precious money for the federal government bureaucrats and reallocate it towards injured soldiers, now would we?


----------



## PuckChaser

Hopefully this gains traction.

As much as I hate unions, I think we need one in this case. I'm tired of having civvies "negotiate" all of our benefits away, and let things like the NVC destroy a soldier's ability to support himself and his family after giving up so much for the nation.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm tired of having civvies "negotiate" all of our benefits away,



You mean like severance ?

I'm guessing you were not complaining when a civilian pay raise meant a military pay raise. Pretty unreasonable to expect it to only work in one direction.



> NVC



Can't argue with you on that one. Its a POS.


----------



## dogger1936

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hopefully this gains traction.
> 
> As much as I hate unions, I think we need one in this case. I'm tired of having civvies "negotiate" all of our benefits away, and let things like the NVC destroy a soldier's ability to support himself and his family after giving up so much for the nation.



More soldiers need to come forward. I know of a few cases of treatment that would boggle most civilians minds. This has to hit critical mass before it goes anywhere good. Unfortunately the media and Canadians saying the vets deserve better is not making it to the hill just yet.


----------



## OldSolduer

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> More soldiers need to come forward. I know of a few cases of treatment that would boggle most civilians minds. This has to hit critical mass before it goes anywhere good. Unfortunately the media and Canadians saying the vets deserve better is not making it to the hill just yet.



Critical mass is important. Also important is the tone and language of any message you want to send. Too harsh is just as bad as none at all.


----------



## dogger1936

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Critical mass is important. Also important is the tone and language of any message you want to send. Too harsh is just as bad as none at all.



Couldn't agree more.Hence why I have not gone to the media yet. I contracted combat arms mouth a few years back...workin on it!


----------



## dogger1936

In all seriousness soldiers need to start writing the Member's of parliament. Either there is a bad break in the wire leading up the CoC or they just don't care.

One way to find out for certain is to engage your MP's.


----------



## medicineman

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more.Hence why I have not gone to the media yet. I contracted combat arms mouth a few years back...workin on it!



Stuff  like this,  I always write what's on my mind first...then sanitize it to something that's not as visceral, is polite and concise.  This way I get all the crazy ramblings off my chest, calm down a bit and then get on to serious business.  I tend to be taken a bit more seriously then  .  Besides, you can be just as hard hitting with a short, sharp slap as hard hook - they stay awake longer to digest what actually happened vs becoming concussed and forgetful.

MM


----------



## Words_Twice

Mark is a helluva guy. We were Army cadets and reservists together a long time ago. He always rose to the top, whatever he did. Topped every course, an all round great guy. I have seen him numerous times on TV, I think he would make an outstanding elected official, ie an MP. I hope Mark is reading this, go for it! Take it easy pal, Mike K.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Snr bureaucrat.


Part of the problem, from what I read here from those hitting their heads against the wall, but only part - as I've said elsewhere.....





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> All we need is a Minister (or higher) to stand up and say, "the rules must change, and they will change".  After all, we've seen other instances where a Minister wants something (examples here, here, here, here, here and - even if it's not _entirely_ within government rules - here), and it happens pretty quickly.  While the bureaucrats may be _partly_ to blame re:  how they wield their discretion, if the rules were changed properly, the bureaucrats would have less wiggle room (or have to wiggle in a different direction).
> 
> Hey, I can dream, can't I?


----------



## Nemo888

Unlimited risk means unlimited liability.

Here is the story.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/afghanistan-veterans-sue-over-disability-payments/article4780971/
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Afghanistan veterans sue over disability payments

Vancouver — The Canadian Press

Published Tuesday, Oct. 30 2012, 6:52 PM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, Oct. 30 2012, 7:51 PM EDT

A group of Afghanistan war veterans has filed a class-action lawsuit against the federal government, saying the disability payment regime under the New Veterans Charter violates their human rights.

The lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court on Tuesday claims disability payments are decided arbitrarily and are not enough to support soldiers who have been injured.
More Related to this Story

    One year later The full story of one of Canada's deadliest days

    Not enough military staff to fight PTSD among returning soldiers: ombudsman

“There’s no other group of people who can be ordered to put their life on the line for their country,” said Don Sorochan, the Vancouver lawyer representing six current and former soldiers named in the suit.

In return, there is a social covenant between those men and women and the citizens of this country to take care of them if they are injured, he said.

“It’s a promise by us, as the people of Canada, that we will look after those who put their lives on the line for us and who put their bodies on the line for us.

“Unfortunately, the bureaucrats don’t think it is binding on them.”

The lawsuit claims the new charter is a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to injured soldiers, and it seeks damages as well as a declaration that disabled veterans have been discriminated against.

The disability payments for injured and disabled soldiers are “paltry” in comparison to awards handed out in Canadian civil courts and by workers’ compensation boards, Mr. Sorochan said.

Among the six soldiers named in the lawsuit against the Attorney General of Canada is Maj. Mark Douglas Campbell, 47, a 32-year veteran of the Canadian Forces who served in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

On June 2, 2008, Maj. Campbell, a member of the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, was mentoring an Afghan National Army battalion that was hit by an IED and Taliban ambush. He lost both legs above the knee, one testicle, suffered numerous lacerations and a ruptured eardrum.

He has since been diagnosed with depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr. Campbell received a lump sum payment for pain and suffering of $260,000.

Still a serving member of the forces, he will receive taxable monthly payments of $10,787.50 when he retires, almost half of it from his regular military annuity. The rest will come from an earnings loss benefit reduced to account for the annuity, a permanent impairment allowance because of his lost job opportunities due to permanent impairment, and a supplement because he is entirely unable to work.

It will leave him in a net earnings loss, the lawsuit claims.

“Mr. Campbell suffered a catastrophic injury that ended his upwards career as a senior decorated Canadian Forces member,” says the lawsuit.

“He is incapable of earning a gainful income and will most certainly suffer financial distress in the future as family needs far exceed their reduced means.”

Cpl. Bradley Darren Quast, 23, was part of a light armoured patrol hit by an IED on Dec. 30, 2009. Four soldiers and Canadian journalist Michelle Lang were killed.

“Mr. Quast was extremely disoriented following the blast. He found himself lying amongst deceased and dismembered victims of the blast,” the lawsuit says. “People were screaming and Mr. Quast saw injured and dying comrades strewn about the blast (site).”

Mr. Quast, a reservist in the South Alberta Light Horse Regiment, suffered severe injuries to his leg and foot. He’s undergone numerous surgeries and has another scheduled for spring of next year.

Mr. Quast, who has been told he will be medically discharged but has not been given a date, received an initial $55,000 lump sum payment for pain and suffering and another $43,000 last year.

In May, he received another $102,000 lump sum payment for post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.

Mr. Quast, who wanted to pursue a career as a police officer, may never be able to meet the physical requirements, the lawsuit says.

The other soldiers named in the suit include a Port Moody soldier who suffered injuries to his knees patrolling the streets of Kabul and a Vancouver reservist hit by a tree felled to clear out fields of fire around a remote outpost in Kandahar province.

Bombadier Daniel Christopher Scott, a reservist from Surrey, B.C., was injured in a February 2010 training accident at the Kankala Range in Kandahar province.

Mr. Scott, 26, suffered a leg fracture, collapsed lung and damage to his kidney, spleen and pancreas when a claymore mine exploded close to his platoon. Another soldier died en route with him to the hospital at Kandahar Air Field.

Two officers in charge and a warrant officer who detonated the mine faced court-martial over the accident.

Mr. Scott received a $41,000 lump sum payment in lieu of a disability pension, an amount the lawsuit said is insufficient to cover damages for the permanent injuries he suffered and the loss of earning capacity.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.

It’s not the first lawsuit launched over the New Veterans Charter, which was adopted unanimously by Parliament and came into effect in 2006.

Earlier this month, Veterans Affairs ended a policy of clawing back benefit payments of disabled veterans after a Federal Court rejected the practice.

It is the “honour of the Crown” that is at stake, said Mr. Sorochan, who has taken on the case pro bono.

He said he is always hopeful that disputes can be resolved without a long court fight. A class-action lawsuit can take years to wind its way through the courts.

“The New Veterans Charter was thought, unanimously, by all politicians then in Parliament, to be a good thing. They were wrong. And now we’re using this lawsuit as a mechanism to try and get it across that they were wrong,” he said.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit more from the _Toronto Star_:


> Wounded and injured soldiers have launched a class-action lawsuit against the federal government, charging that they’ve been shortchanged compensation for their often horrific and life-changing injuries.
> 
> The lawsuit takes aim at the controversial lump sum payments paid to wounded soldiers by Veterans Affairs Canada, saying it’s not enough to ensure they can move on with their lives.
> 
> Among those named in the lawsuit filed Tuesday are Dan Scott, badly injured in a training accident in Afghanistan, and Mark Campbell, who lost both legs in a roadside blast and was profiled in a Star series about wounded soldiers.
> 
> But the legal action could grow to include “hundreds” of other wounded and injured soldiers, said Donald Sorochan, a senior partner with the Vancouver office of Miller Thomson, the law firm that is handling the case pro bono.
> 
> The lawsuit notes that between 2002 and 2011, more than 2,000 soldiers suffered injuries in Afghanistan.
> 
> Canadian soldiers make an “extraordinary personal commitment” to risk their life, the lawsuit says. In return, it claims there’s an implicit promise that the country will look after them if they suffer injuries resulting from their military service.
> 
> But that vow is being shattered by the treatment of veterans today, Sorochan said.
> 
> “We, the people, made this promise. The problem is that our bureaucrats aren’t keeping it. And they aren’t keeping it because they don’t think they have to,” he said in an interview from his Vancouver office Tuesday.
> 
> “We’re arguing on several constitutional grounds that they have to.”
> 
> The 55-page lawsuit quotes from former prime minister Robert Borden, who promised troops getting ready for the battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917 that they would be looked after ....


----------



## alfa_uno

Has anyone heard the rumor that VAC will be extending the education benefit not just for kids of the fallen but also for any injured vet? Sorry if I'm in the wrong forum, feel free to direct me to the right one.


----------



## ArmyGuy99

Here's some info on where to get up to date info on the status of the suit.

http://equitassociety.ca/?page_id=5

and

here is the link to the April 13 News Letter.  Looks like it'll be a long hard fight.   

anzer:  Bring it on!!

http://equitassociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/April-Update-Equitas.pdf


----------



## Teager

An update from the media.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/05/08/bc-class-action-soldiers-veterans-affairs.html


----------



## Szczep

Thanks Teager for that info and link.
There should be more people joining that case.


----------



## Teager

It has to be deemed a class action by the courts first from what I understand. Once the courts give the green light then more veterans can join.


----------



## ArmyGuy99

Update:

Next court date is July 22nd or there about, still doing preliminary dancing around stuff, the gov't is going to try and get it all thrown out.  Although, our lawyers are confident.

I will be posting updates here as I get them from the lawyers.


----------



## ArmyGuy99

The Gov't has responded;

http://equitassociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Equitas-Society-June-2013-Update-Newsletter.pdf


Not very nice of them either


----------



## Teager

This is just a tactic to delay the process. If its not striked down then there forced to respond immediatley. I'm willing to bet that there arguments are going to be pretty weak and we'll be granted a class action suit.


----------



## Nemo888

“The Defendant submits that none of the claims asserted by the Representative Plaintiffs constitutes a reasonable claim, that the claims are _frivolous or vexatious_, and accordingly that they should be struck out in their entirety.” 

You would think they were deliberately trying to get us upset. My response cannot be printed here. I expect this will be like the equal pay suit all over again. 

The next time your CO sends you into harms way tell him his orders are frivolous and vexatious. Unlimited liability is a one way street it seems.


----------



## George Wallace

> “The Plaintiffs allege that the amounts they received under their claims are inadequate
> and substandard. They allege that the provisions of the legislation treat some disabled
> veterans less generously than the formerly applicable provisions of the Pension Act,
> (“the former legislation”) and that the provisions of the legislation do not accord with the
> heads of damages or amount of damages which Superior Courts or provincial Workers
> Compensation legislation might award for “analogous personal injuries”.”




Here is a "good idea faerie" question:  With the Government making such drastic cuts to the Public Civil Service, would this not indicate that the complete dismissal and dismantling the Dept of Veterans Affairs as being a redundant and useless organization, more fittingly replaced by a Federal Workman's Compensation Board?  If all claims going to VAC are initially refused "on principal", what is the use of them, other than adding more stress to the lives of injured Service members?


----------



## The Bread Guy

MedTech32 said:
			
		

> The Gov't has responded;
> 
> http://equitassociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Equitas-Society-June-2013-Update-Newsletter.pdf
> 
> 
> Not very nice of them either


And _this_ is, in part, why the lawyers get sooooo much money when the litigation gets settled ....


----------



## BlueJays1985

Good Luck to anyone, and everyone participating in this fight. I will email my MP now. And again tomorrow. And again the next day. 
This is awful.

Keep your head up


----------



## Teager

Here is the response to the plaintiffs argument. Court will continue on July 22-24 2013

http://equitassociety.ca/?page_id=1006


----------



## Wookilar

I'm certainly no lawyer, but it seems to me that they have taken a very logical view of how to disagree with the Crown's allegations that the suit is "vexatious." (boy didn't that response cheese me off)


----------



## Teager

The latest media update.



> Chris Lane, CTV British Columbia
> Published Monday, July 22, 2013 6:06PM PDT
> Last Updated Monday, July 22, 2013 6:11PM PDT
> The federal government is asking a BC Supreme Court judge to strike down a class-action lawsuit filed by six war veterans over disability compensation.
> 
> The disabled veterans are challenging a pension program introduced in 2006, which the soldiers say violates their human rights with insufficient and arbitrary disability payments.
> 
> Veteran pensions previously fell under the Pension Act, before the New Veterans Charter was signed off seven years ago to establish more veteran-specific regulations.
> 
> Related Stories
> Afghanistan war vets file class-action suit against federal government Kevin Berry, one of the plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, contends that the benefits are 40 to 90 per cent worse under the new rules, and are weaker than provincial compensation plans.
> 
> The federal government argues the soldiers’ concerns should not be dealt with by the courts. They say the veterans should lobby MPs instead to change the legislation.
> 
> “They’re telling us that you can’t sue us because you’re veterans, you’re not entitled to equal compensation because you’re veterans,” said Berry.
> 
> “We’re not going to stand for that.”
> 
> Jim Scott, whose son Daniel is another one of the six disabled soldiers in the class-action suit, said the court case will determine what power soldiers have to negotiate their pensions.
> 
> “What we’re here to do today is to establish whether soldiers have fundamental rights under the Charter … and whether the government owes them a duty of care,” said Scott.
> 
> The court hearing will continue Tuesday and Wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/veterans-suing-government-over-disability-pensions-1.1378991#ixzz2ZyQqSkaR


----------



## Teager

Here is a site that tells how the first day of court went on July 22nd 2013. This is probably going to piss a lot of people off considering one of the points says "The crown also argued that Canada has no obligations to provide any benefits to Veterans."

See link for more details.

http://canadianveteran011.blogspot.ca/2013/07/veterans-suing-government-over.html


----------



## Kat Stevens

Just...wow.  You're welcome, Canada.  There needs to be a week long CAF version of "blue flu", shut the whole thing down.


----------



## Teager

Its funny how we sign a contract of unlimited liability and even fight in defence of the crown. Now the crown is simply washing its hands of us and is now trying to defend itself from us. I never thought I would see the day where the government in court would actualy say they don't owe veterans anything. This has to be one of the biggest kicks in the pants for any serving member past, present, and future not to mention a major blow to moral.

It begs the question that if the government doesn't have our back at all why do we have theres? I totally agree with Kat shut the whole thing down for a week.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Just...wow.  You're welcome, Canada.  There needs to be a week long CAF version of "blue flu", shut the whole thing down.



Our elected representatives need to step up and tell the PM to stop this. Of course, the MPs won't - we all know they are  pretty  much whipped puppies and will do whatever they are told to do.

If it comes to pass that the Government of Canada owes us nothing and the courts affirm this, I see two COAs for me:

1. Resign effective immediately. Wait for one day post release, then blast the people of Canada, who are in fact the government, for letting this happen; or

2. Stay and attempt to make I better for younger ones.


----------



## George Wallace

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Our elected representatives need to step up and tell the PM to stop this. Of course, the MPs won't - we all know they are  pretty  much whipped puppies and will do whatever they are told to do.
> 
> If it comes to pass that the Government of Canada owes us nothing and the courts affirm this, I see two COAs for me:



So true.  They don't give a damn about the CAF, RCMP, Public Servants, nor John Q Public.  They do give a damn if it affects their pockets.

Case in point:  Senate passed the Bill bringing in the GST, only after they amended it  to give themselves "GST Exempt" cards (like Treaty Cards).  Now this is the BS that we live with.


----------



## OldSolduer

Very hypocritical of the government, whatever party is in power.

I am very saddened by the attitude that " oh by the way that 'social contract' thing we talked about? Well we really don't have to follow it, and besides, you should have saved some money while you were serving because we have NONE FOR YOU NOW. And don't you all have families that can take care of you? Ok, by by til the next time we need some suckers.....I mean soldiers"

What is it going to take? Maybe the CDS resigning and making a statement that this COA the government is pursuing is unacceptable? 

Do not hold your breath.

This is not the Canada I know. The Canada I know is not perfect, but at least that Canada attempts to help.


----------



## PMedMoe

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Case in point:  Senate passed the Bill bringing in the GST, only after they amended it  to give themselves "GST Exempt" cards (like Treaty Cards).



Don't forget the Federal government's discount on alcohol in Ontario: LCBO’s new ‘simplified pricing formula’ gives diplomats, federal government 49% discount on booze


----------



## MJP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So true.  They don't give a damn about the CAF, RCMP, Public Servants, nor John Q Public.  They do give a damn if it affects their pockets.
> 
> Case in point:  Senate passed the Bill bringing in the GST, only after they amended it  to give themselves "GST Exempt" cards (like Treaty Cards).  Now this is the BS that we live with.



Unless you can "show me the money I am calling BS on your claim.  Don't get me wrong I dislike the response as well but lets not colour this topic with half truths and straw man arguments

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/myths/#m6
Myth # 6
Some individuals claim to be exempt from GST/HST. Some carry a card to "prove" their claim.

The Facts

GST/HST legislation does not provide tax exemptions for any individuals, and any card claiming such an exemption is a fraud. However, individuals with Indian status under the Indian Act may not be required to pay GST/HST on the purchase of goods and services under certain conditions. (For details, see Publication B-039 GST/HST administrative policy - Application of the GST/HST to Indians.)

Some consumers think that falsely claiming an "exemption" is an effective protest against taxes or a government. In fact, any resulting discount they receive is at the expense of the vendor. Vendors must remit tax on all taxable transactions, even if they have mistakenly failed to collect the GST/HST from an individual falsely claiming an exemption.

You may sometimes be led to believe that you are not paying GST/HST because a vendor may promote a sale by advertising "Pay no GST" or other similar claims. The vendor in these cases discounts the price so that the final, tax-inclusive cost is the same as the advertised, pre-tax price.


----------



## Teager

Alright so what happened in court over the last two days has been posted. The Crown conceded that Canada has to provide care and compensation for Canadian Veterans and does this through the NVC. So now they are doing some back peddaling.

Here is the link to the last 3 days of court. I don't know when a decision will be handed down for a class action.

http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/blog/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> This is not the Canada I know. The Canada I know is not perfect, but at least that Canada attempts to help.



You are right, it's not the Canada you know,.....it's a courtroom where lies, half-truths and general weaselship got flung together, stirred up and eventually, hopefully, a half decent desicion can be made from all that.  It's nothing but negotiation and you always start from a postition that puts the other side "off".

What did you expect them to start with,...."We were wrong and we're sorry"?

[it would have been nice in this case] :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

<broken record>


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If there was a solution that would compensate wounded/disabled vets in a way that most people would consider fairly, and cost *ZERO extra bucks*, it would have been implemented.  As long as it would cost more to do this, there's no political appetite for it to happen, no matter WHICH party is in power.
> 
> Also, when it comes to making things happen if politicians want them to happen ........
> 
> 
> 
> milnews.ca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All we need is a Minister (or higher) to stand up and say, "the rules must change, and they will change".  After all, we've seen other instances where a Minister wants something (examples here, here, here, here, here and - even if it's not _entirely_ within government rules - here), and it happens pretty quickly.  While the bureaucrats may be _partly_ to blame re:  how they wield their discretion, if the rules were changed properly, the bureaucrats would have less wiggle room (or have to wiggle in a different direction).
> 
> Hey, I can dream, can't I?
> 
> 
> 
> not to mention this most recent example.
> 
> If the politicians _really_ want these changes, they _will_ happen.  It would cost waaaaaaaaaay more treasure than they're willing to spend, though, so it's _not_ happening.  Changing branch names and ribbons/bows/pins are cheap compared to what it would cost to overhaul how wounded/disabled vets are compensated, so you get different branch names, and ribbons/bows/pins.
> 
> My  :2c:
Click to expand...

</broken record>

Also, when it's in the courts, the Government will fight from the (unspoken) "we'll fight as long as a court doesn't say we _have to_ change things" position.  

Finally, when it comes to setting a precedent, we have the words of the Honourable James Hacker, "You mean that if we do the right thing this time, we might have to do the right thing again next time?"


----------



## BlueJays1985

Im fully aware that I dont know much about this, as I have barely, barely, scratched the surface with these forums and links within them. 
As a new recruit I try to maintain my faith in 'the system' and recall all the reasons why Canada is the best country in the world. Trying to tell my self that the Govt always has its citizens at heart...while reading that the Crown doesnt owe its veterans anything is incredibly discouraging. I wont allow it to change who I am, or how I feel about the nation that has provided me such a wonderful life. 

I will continue to exercise my democratic right afforded to me by the veterans, that the crown owes nothing to... and bombard MPP Lisa McLeod and MP John Baird making sure they know I, and the members of my community, will not accept political representation that does not support the Canadian Veteran. 

Good luck


----------



## kratz

or the court argument was a classic "trial balloon" to gauge the reaction of current members.

The Federal government did slide the new VAC in under the radar, so this might have gone unnoticed as well.


----------



## The Bread Guy

kratz said:
			
		

> or the court argument was a classic "trial balloon" to gauge the reaction of current members.


Most government trial balloons tend to be "shared" with media and attributed to "anonymous sources", not generally shared under oath in court.


----------



## Inquisitor

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Here is a "good idea faerie" question: dismantling the Dept of Veterans Affairs as being a redundant and useless organization, more fittingly replaced by a Federal Workman's Compensation  Board?  If all claims going to VAC are initially refused "on principal", what is the use of them, other than adding more stress to the lives of injured Service members?



Workman's Compensation  Workplace Safety and Insurance Board TFTFY.   >Please be careful what you wish for. I sincerely hope that no-one reading this has the misfortune to deal with its Ontario Provincial Counterpart.  Has a nasty reputation for aiding the employer and I suppose I should say "Hindering" the injured party.


----------



## George Wallace

Can't really wish for much in today's climate.   Not one of the various organizations is likely to do the job to anyone's satisfaction.  All the plans are 'money pits'.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> Here is a site that tells how the first day of court went on July 22nd 2013. This is probably going to piss a lot of people off considering one of the points says "The crown also argued that Canada has no obligations to provide any benefits to Veterans."
> 
> See link for more details.
> 
> http://canadianveteran011.blogspot.ca/2013/07/veterans-suing-government-over.html


The media finally catches up here:


> Lawyers for the federal government are asking a British Columbia judge to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by current and former soldiers injured in Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan, saying Ottawa owes them nothing more than what they have already received under its controversial New Veterans Charter.
> 
> The lawsuit filed last fall by six veterans claims that the new charter, and the changes it brought to the compensation regime for Canadian Forces members, violates the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
> 
> That claim is "unnecessary, frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process," argue lawyers for the federal Attorney General, who were in B.C. Supreme Court last week asking a judge to dismiss the case.
> 
> "In support of their claim, the representative plaintiffs assert the existence of a 'social covenant,' a public law duty, and a fiduciary duty on the part of the federal government," Jasvinder S. Basran, the regional director general for the federal Justice Department, said in an application filed with the court.
> 
> The lawsuit invokes the "honour of the Crown," a concept that has been argued in aboriginal rights claims.
> 
> "The defendant submits that none of the claims asserted by the representative plaintiffs constitutes a reasonable claim, that the claims are frivolous or vexatious, and accordingly that they should be struck out in their entirety." ....


----------



## PuckChaser

While I'm very disheartened by the government's lawyers remarks in this case, I don't think I'm a big fan of the NDP jumping on the bandwagon for our cause. I just did a little research, and the NVC was passed unanimously in the House, and Peter Stoffer was a MP at the time. Did he think it was OK then, and change his mind? Did he not care and just vote party lines? Or is he only picking up the cause now, because it has potential to embarrass the government?

I'm leaning more to number 3....


----------



## Teager

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> While I'm very disheartened by the government's lawyers remarks in this case, I don't think I'm a big fan of the NDP jumping on the bandwagon for our cause. I just did a little research, and the NVC was passed unanimously in the House, and Peter Stoffer was a MP at the time. Did he think it was OK then, and change his mind? Did he not care and just vote party lines? Or is he only picking up the cause now, because it has potential to embarrass the government?
> 
> I'm leaning more to number 3....



The recent CTV article mentions one of the lawyers fighting for the vets. He says he has been in touch with multiple politicians from all parties. When they passed the NVC all politicians believed that they were doing a "good thing" and weren't seeing it as a means to save money. Now it is seen as a means to save money.

The government is saving massive amounts of money with the lump sum amount. If you think about the old system where they were given a pension for life for an injury and how much money they would have to pay out over that time. Now a majority of the WWII vets are passing away and with each one that passes that had an injury they are no longer paying a pension to them which adds to the savings.

The majority of civis and even some military members believe that if you are injured you are given a pension for life. The only pension you get is the one you've worked for and thats if you have enough time in.

I'm sure any member who has been injured would give every penny back to have there working body/mind back. I know I would.


----------



## Wookilar

Teager said:
			
		

> I'm sure any member who has been injured would give every penny back to have there working body/mind back. I know I would.



 :goodpost:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> .... Now it is seen as *a means to save money* ....


Making changes by ANY party in power unlikely.


----------



## Teager

From what I have been reading the court will render a decision come October.


----------



## Future Pensioner

From Friday, 06 Sep 13:

A B.C. Supreme Court justice says current and former members of the Canadian Forces who were injured in Afghanistan can continue their class-action lawsuit against the federal government.

The lawsuit was filed last fall, with plaintiffs arguing the new Veterans Charter and the changes it brings to the compensation regime for members of the Canadian Forces violate the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

more at this link:    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/afghanistan-veterans-can-continue-lawsuit-against-federal-government-judge-says/article14176839/


----------



## Teager

Excellent news! The fight continues.


----------



## krustyrl

Let's hope the GoC recognizes the shortcomings and learned from the last Class Action Lawsuit by making this a short battle for the Veterans but somehow past history and my trick knee says otherwise.  I hope the lawyers on behalf of the ill and injured bring their best game .!      :yellow:


----------



## Teager

For complete transcripts and the decision from the judge see below link.

http://equitassociety.ca/legal-action


----------



## bigcletus

There's billions more at state here...I think the gov't won't roll over on this one...


----------



## Teager

Feds appeal decision that cleared way for Afghanistan vets lawsuit over benefits
OTTAWA - The Harper government says it intends to appeal a B.C. court ruling that cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit involving veterans of Canada's war in Afghanistan.
via NewsFlash
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Feds+appeal+decision+that+cleared+Afghanistan+vets+lawsuit/8988103/story.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here's the Info-machine's version - highlights mine:


> The following was issued today regarding the Scott et al. v. Attorney General of Canada proposed class action:
> 
> On September 6, 2013, the Honourable Mr. Justice Gordon Weatherill released his ruling on the Attorney General of Canada's Motion to Strike the Notice of Civil Claim filed by the Plaintiffs' counsel in the Scott et al. v. Attorney General of Canada proposed class action.
> 
> *The Plaintiffs argue that the promises of past governments are binding on present and future governments. While this may sound reasonable, their argument could have a far broader impact than perhaps intended by the Plaintiffs. If accepted, this principle could undermine democratic accountability as parliamentarians of the future could be prevented from changing important legislation, including the sort of changes that some Veterans would like to see to the New Veterans Charter.*
> 
> We are therefore appealing Justice Weatherill's decision, as this case is not the proper vehicle for addressing the very real concerns of Veterans.
> 
> "*My recent commitment to proceed with a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter by elected officials, in our Parliament, will provide the appropriate forum where all voices can be heard, including those of the Plaintiffs, Veterans, family members, other interested individuals and subject matter experts," said the Honourable Julian Fantino, Minister of Veterans Affairs. "That is where we can work together on appropriate change for Veterans and their families*." ....


<broken record>
Compare the second bit in yellow above to the Minister's commitment shortly after he took office ....


> *.... We are here to deliver the care and support Veterans need, when they need it. That is our promise to Veterans. Always has been. Always will be ....*


</broken record>


----------



## Teager

The latest from the Equitas site in response to the Governments appeal.

http://equitassociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/EQUITAS_NewsRelease_03Oct2013_ResponseToGovtAppealOfBCSupremeCourtRuling.pdf


----------



## Nemo888

Part 3 and part 4 are an amazing summary of the lawsuit. 

Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj_wxjkxQN8#t=21

Part 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWVHZfP-Wa0


----------



## Nemo888

The Honorable gentleman in part seven makes me wonder if the event is in a licensed establishment if you know what I mean.


----------



## Teager

Here is a Briefing Memo/Update with whats happening. Seems that we may be back in court this summer.

http://equitassociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Briefing-Memorandum-February-20141.pdf


----------



## Teager

More from the media.



> ...One of the suit's main arguments is the existence of a "social contract" between the government and Canadian Forces veterans.
> 
> The lawsuit argues a social covenant was first promised to those who served in the Canadian Armed Forces during the First World War and has been continually promised since then, through policy, political speeches and veterans' legislation, until now.
> 
> That promise includes adequate recognition and benefits for those who serve.
> 
> The lead lawyer for the six veterans who brought the suit said the promise made to soldiers fighting in the First World War is constitutionally protected.
> 
> "The social covenant is this promise that our country, Canada, has promised service people they will be protected when they get maimed and their families will be looked after if they are killed," Donald Sorochan said.
> 
> But in its legal response, government lawyers said no such contract exists.
> 
> "At no time in Canada's history has any alleged 'social contract' or 'social covenant' having the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs been given effect in any statute, regulation or as a constitutional principle written or unwritten."
> 
> 'Contradiction to the culture that is Canada'
> 
> The government goes on to argue that when Prime Minister Robert Borden first made the promise during the First World War, he was making political statements that were not meant to create a social contract.
> 
> Pat Stogran is the spokesperson for the group behind the lawsuit, the Equitas Society, and is the former veterans ombudsman. He called the government's response "ludicrous."
> 
> "That is a contradiction to the culture that is Canada," he said.
> 
> Stogran also said veterans are being shortchanged and many of the serving soldiers right now have no idea the problems they will face once they're out of the forces.
> 
> The current veterans ombudsman said there was a clause in legislation the New Veterans Charter replaced to ensure the government was fulfilling its obligations to veterans, but that clause was not included in the new legislation.
> 
> The Veterans Ombudsman's Office suggests that obligation should be part of the New Veterans Charter
> 
> "So it's clearly at least stated within the context of the legislation that there is an obligation and it doesn't matter whether it's legislated or moral or how you describe it, but there is an obligation for every citizen of Canada," current Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent said.
> 
> The new charter is undergoing a review right now.



More at link http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-don-t-have-social-contract-ottawa-says-in-lawsuit-response-1.2577053


----------



## TCM621

Anyone know how many major lawsuits to government is facing over non payment of benefits or short changing of veterans and troops? I am planning to write my MP about this and I would like to provide specific examples. I know of this one, Marcus Brauer's one about HEA and was there one about claw back or was it included in this one?


----------



## Teager

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Anyone know how many major lawsuits to government is facing over non payment of benefits or short changing of veterans and troops? I am planning to write my MP about this and I would like to provide specific examples. I know of this one, Marcus Brauer's one about HEA and was there one about claw back or was it included in this one?



Here is the thread on the SISIP Claw Back. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2483.275

Not sure on number of law suits as this law suit is more of a class action on behalf of all NVC veterans.


----------



## Tibbson

Forgive me is this was posted elsewhere, I didn't see it come up yet.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-has-no-special-obligation-to-soldiers-federal-lawyers-say-1.1735587

"Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 
Published Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:56PM EDT 

OTTAWA -- Federal lawyers say Ottawa has no special obligation to those who've fought wars on behalf of Canada and that it's unfair to bind the Harper government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.

The assertion is spelled out in black and white in a statement of defence filed by the Justice Department in a class-action lawsuit by Afghan veterans who claim a 2006 overhaul of benefits is discriminatory under the charter of rights.

The court papers, filed in January, were made public Tuesday, the same day Prime Minister Stephen Harper greeted the last wave of soldiers returning from the now-concluded mission in Afghanistan.

The Conservatives, who've built political capital on supporting the troops, are planning a day of commemoration for the mission, which lasted a dozen years, on May 9.

At the same time, federal lawyers argue that the lawsuit, if successful, would put disabled veterans ahead of all other Canadians in terms of their compensation and treatment by the federal government.

The B.C. court filing, obtained by The Canadian Press, also states that there is "social contract" between the nation and its soldiers whom are called upon to lay down their lives without question.

At issue is a 1917 pledge made by Sir Robert Borden, the country's prime minister during the First World War on the eve of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which said: "You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government I give you this assurance: That you need not fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and Empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done.  "The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died."

The statement was nothing more than a speech by a politician; it cannot be considered applicable today, and was never legislated, federal lawyers stated.  "The defendant pleads that the statements made by Sir Robert Borden and the coalition government in 1917 were political speeches that reflected the policy positions of the government at the time and were never intended to create a contract or covenant," said the 37-page court filing.
"It is further pleaded that at no time were these statements intended to bind future governments and, in any event, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty would have prevented such a result had it been intended."

The defence goes on to say Borden's statement was simply a policy position and Parliament, within the limits of the constitution, "has the unfettered discretion to change or reverse any policy set by a previous government."  The position taken by federal lawyers is bound to further sour already bitter relations with the veterans community, which is still smarting from the closure of eight regional veterans affairs offices in January.
The lawsuit was originally filed in B.C. Supreme Court in October 2012 and involves six veterans of the Afghan war.

The soldiers are suing over the new veterans charter, which provides workers-compensation-style lump sum payments to wounded vets for non-economic losses, such as losing limbs, as opposed to the pension-for-life settlements provided after previous wars.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.

The notion that Ottawa has no special obligation to its soldiers first appeared last summer in court papers when federal lawyers tried to get the class-action dismissed.  Last fall, a Federal Court judge shot down the attempt to halt the case -- something the Harper government is now appealing.
The Royal Canadian Legion described the government's position as "reprehensible" last October.


Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-has-no-special-obligation-to-soldiers-federal-lawyers-say-1.1735587#ixzz2wS0qzhzf


----------



## blackberet17

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> At issue is a 1917 pledge made by Sir Robert Borden, the country's prime minister during the First World War on the eve of the Battle of Vimy Ridge, which said: "You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government I give you this assurance: That you need not fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and Empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done.  "The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of people at home that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died."
> 
> The statement was nothing more than a speech by a politician; it cannot be considered applicable today, and was never legislated, federal lawyers stated.  "The defendant pleads that the statements made by Sir Robert Borden and the coalition government in 1917 were political speeches that reflected the policy positions of the government at the time and were never intended to create a contract or covenant," said the 37-page court filing.
> 
> "It is further pleaded that at no time were these statements intended to bind future governments and, in any event, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty would have prevented such a result had it been intended."
> 
> The defence goes on to say Borden's statement was simply a policy position and Parliament, within the limits of the constitution, "has the unfettered discretion to change or reverse any policy set by a previous government."  The position taken by federal lawyers is bound to further sour already bitter relations with the veterans community, which is still smarting from the closure of eight regional veterans affairs offices in January.



I could swear there was more to Borden's statement at the time. And that what he said on the eve of Vimy Ridge was something he said prior to, and reiterated afterwards. There's also something written somewhere (dammit) about the original purposes and intent behind the first programs established by the Government of the day for veterans.

I've been going through my history books and whatever HoC transcripts (limited, unfortunately) I can find from the FWW period, and I'm not having any luck. Has anybody got an electronic copy by chance of Borden's journals? He never finished his memoirs, but apparently there are copies of his journals out there, just not in print.


----------



## dapaterson

Many university libraries have comprehensive sets of the Hansard, which may permit you to track down any formal statements made.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Many university libraries have comprehensive sets of the Hansard, which may permit you to track down any formal statements made.


I've also had good luck on sometimes obscure info requests going straight to the source ....


> To send comments or questions regarding finding information about Parliament, please contact us at info@parl.gc.ca.
> 
> Information Service
> Parliament of Canada
> Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A9
> 
> Toll-free (Canada): 1-866-599-4999
> Telephone: 1-613-992-4793
> TTY: 1-613-995-2266


----------



## blackberet17

I submitted a request to Library and Archives Canada months ago, but have heard nothing after repeated pokes. LAC holds Borden's papers, which would be a great source.

Trying not to let that conspiracy theory pop back into my brain... ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

This statement just out today - highlights mine:


> The Honourable Julian Fantino, Minister of Veterans Affairs, issued the following statement today regarding the New Veterans Charter (NVC):
> 
> "Last November 19, 2013, I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to demonstrate my support for this new comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, including all the enhancements that have been made to it, to date, with a special focus on the most seriously injured, support for families and the delivery of departmental programs.
> 
> "Our commitment to Canadian Veterans is absolute and has been since our Government was formed in 2006.
> 
> *"Some have called the work done by Veterans Affairs to be a duty, a responsibility, a commitment, a social contract or a sacred obligation. I believe it is all of those things.*
> 
> "I therefore reaffirm my commitment to improve the New Veterans Charter and to that end, *I have asked the Parliamentary Review to include consultations with Canadians, Veterans and experts on exactly what our shared duty, responsibility, mandate, obligation, commitment or contract is with Canadian Veterans and how that should be stated in the New Veterans Charter*.
> 
> "I look forward to the Committee’s findings, and based on these findings, I remain committed to improving the New Veterans Charter and supporting Canadian Armed Forces personnel, Veterans and their families, as they so rightly deserve.”


So, on the bit in yellow, is the Minister saying "I believe my Ministry's work is a social contract" the same as Canada saying "we have a social contract with vets to take care of them"?

Also, on the bit in orange, am I being _too_ cynical for thinking that because any changes of the kinds called for by many will cost money, public consultation on "what do experts think the contract/duty is" in this case will just make the review take longer?   Silly me - I'd think the Committee review might have dealt with that given how long the "social contract" issue has been in play.

 :facepalm:


----------



## Teager

Very interesting remarks. I guess the "social contract" exists its just anything but what PM Borden said.  This also throws a monkey wrench into the NVC lawsuit as the committee is tasked with defining the social contract so I'm wondering how this will play out in court now? The committee should also be given deadlines with how long they drag everything out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Teager said:
			
		

> Very interesting remarks. I guess the "social contract" exists its just anything but what PM Borden said.  This also throws a monkey wrench into the NVC lawsuit as the committee is tasked with defining the social contract so I'm wondering how this will play out in court now? The committee should also be given deadlines with how long they drag everything out.



Likely long enough to make it a new government's problem.


----------



## blackberet17

Extract from the _Pension Act_:

"2. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled."

Extract from the _Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act_, aka New Veterans Charter:

"An Act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans [...]."

Now...I'm not a lawyer, but. Am I the only one reading the first extract as oh, I don't know, something way stronger than a "social contract", IOW, something along the lines of, oh, I don't know, a LEGAL OBLIGATION?


----------



## blackberet17

recceguy said:
			
		

> Likely long enough to make it a new government's problem.



2015, baby.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> 2015, baby.



A mere blink of the eye when talking about trying to get something from 'consultation with Canadians', through a committee, past the floor and then through the Senate and back to the floor.

The machinations of government are slower than molasses in January, when they want to 'be seen' as interested and doing something, but at the same time, hoping it quietly goes away into the good night.


----------



## The Bread Guy

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Extract from the _Pension Act_:
> 
> "2. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled."
> 
> (.... ) Am I the only one reading the first extract as oh, I don't know, something way stronger than a "social contract", IOW, something along the lines of, oh, I don't know, a LEGAL OBLIGATION?


The legislation _is_ clear - what the fight is about is what _kind_ of "compensation" is fairest/makes the most sense.  A one-cheque-as-you-leave system compensates, but very differently than a here's-a-monthly-pension-for-life system.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The machinations of government are slower than molasses in January, when they want to 'be seen' as interested and doing something, but at the same time, hoping it quietly goes away into the good night.


Unlike when there's political will behind something (oh, and it costs nothing to do).


----------



## Dissident

This is going around on FB:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjVxhA2IvV0&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Teager

Back in court December 3rd and 4th 2014.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Teager said:
			
		

> Back in court December 3rd and 4th 2014.



Good luck!  

Let's hope it moves forward instead of another gov't holding action.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> Back in court December 3rd and 4th 2014.


And here's some of what's happening from The Canadian Press:


> A federal government lawyer is asking B.C.'s highest court to throw out a class-action lawsuit by Canadian Forces members injured in Afghanistan who say they've been stripped of benefits.
> 
> The Attorney General of Canada is appealing a B.C. Supreme Court decision from September 2013 that ruled the lawsuit could proceed for the soldiers who say the new compensation regime is unfair.
> 
> Current and former members contend the new Veterans Charter is unconstitutional, and they don't like that the lifetime disability pension for disabled soldiers is being replaced with lump-sum payments.
> 
> A government lawyer is disputing the soldiers' claims that a "social covenant" exists between the public and government that ultimately means a duty is owed to the soldiers based on the "honour of the Crown."
> 
> Paul Vickery, a lawyer for the attorney general, told the court the government acknowledges the suffering and that veterans deserve respect, but noted the new regime was approved by a unanimous vote of Parliament ....





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's hope it moves forward instead of another gov't holding action.


So far, column B.


----------



## Tibbson

Hmmm, government lawyers deny the Crown has any honour.  We coulda told them that long ago.


----------



## TCM621

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Hmmm, government lawyers deny the Crown has any honour.  We coulda told them that long ago.


The part that bugs me is the assertion by the government  that "honour of the crown"  only applies to natives. Racism much?


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And here's some of what's happening from The Canadian Press



Here is the National Post version of this press release.


----------



## McG

Wonder how far that money could have gone to addressing the concerns of the involved vets.


> Fighting veterans' class-action suit has cost Ottawa $700,000
> CBC NEWS
> 28 Jan 2015
> 
> The federal government has spent almost $700,000 fighting a class-action lawsuit by disgruntled, wounded Afghan veterans, newly released figures show.
> 
> The figures are contained in answers to questions posed to the offices of Justice Minister Peter MacKay and Defence Minister Rob Nicholson by Liberal MP Stéphane Dion tabled in the House of Commons this week.
> 
> The Department of Justice has borne the majority of the legal costs so far, spending approximately $694,070.52 to fight the lawsuit, while the Department of National Defence spent another $3,231.22.
> 
> The Department of Veterans Affairs said it did not spend any money in the case before the courts.
> 
> Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, at a press conference Wednesday morning said the legal bill is unconscionable and he called on the government to negotiate a settlement.
> 
> Blais said Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau told him a Liberal government would settle the suit and added he was to meet next with NDP Leader Tom Mulcair.
> 
> Asked about the lawsuit on Wednesday, Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole said "it's the first matter" he looked into after being appointed to the job three weeks ago, adding he couldn't comment further because the case is before the courts.
> 
> The ex-soldiers are challenging the government's 2006 overhaul of benefits, claiming the new veterans charter is discriminatory under the charter of rights because it does not provide the same level of benefits and support as the old pension system.
> 
> In the government's statement of defence, federal lawyers argue Ottawa has no special obligation to those who've fought the country's wars and that it is unfair to bind the current government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister.
> 
> The assertion has given the governing Conservatives a black eye among ex-soldiers, who are considered a natural constituency.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighting-veterans-class-action-suit-has-cost-ottawa-700-000-1.2934906


----------



## dapaterson

How much is salaries that would be paid to Justice's lawyers whether they are arguing in court or sitting at their desks playing minesweeper engaged in professional development?

Always worth asking how the numbers were determined...


----------



## upandatom

Happened to swing by this on my Internet search about VAC today


----------



## 63 Delta

upandatom said:
			
		

> Happened to swing by this on my Internet search about VAC today



Looks interesting, but the quality is impossible to read. Is there a link or can you upload a higher res image?

Thanks.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/newspapers/canadawar/veterans_e.shtml

Care for the Wounded and Ill - Canada's Treatment and Pension Policy
The Globe And Mail, 21/11/1944

Upgraded photo to 200 dpi. If unreadable, use link.


----------



## NSDreamer

I didn't want to post this under the Fantino or Mercer headlines to keep the focus on the topic and not the people talking about it. Rick's taking a swing at the Government here, but it begs me the question. How can the Federal Government allow their representatives to argue in court that it has no moral obligation to the Veterans. Is it really the age where ethics have become such a minor part of our government that politicians allow that? You can bet if anyone said that on the campaign trail, the other politicians would use it as a harpoon.

 Thoughts?



> Taken from the Mercer Report
> Three years ago the Harper Government went to court in a fight with Canadian veterans. The government argued that if a disabled veteran was compensated for say, losing a limb, then the government should be able to clawback that money out of their pension. Now thankfully, the court ruled no, the government can’t take pension money away from the disabled because losing a limb is not the same as getting a bonus at work.
> 
> Now we find out that once again the government’s back in court, fighting veterans, and this time they’ve spent $700,000.00. And their argument is simple; it’s that Canada has no obligation to veterans whatsoever. None whatsoever. They admit, yes, prior to the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden promised that Canada had a sacred obligation to veterans. But our government is saying that’s no longer true. No obligation at all. Now sadly, for anyone who knows veterans, or disabled ones, this comes as no surprise.
> 
> My buddy Paul is a veteran. He lost both his legs in Afghanistan. Every year they make him prove over and over again that his legs are still gone. Four times they’ve said nope, we’re not taking your word for it. You have to prove they’re still gone. Get a note from a doctor. Literally a note saying his legs have not grown back. You know, in case he's pulling a fast one. His friend was shot in the head and has to prove over and over again that he still has no vision in his left eye. His left eye, by the way, is made out of glass.
> 
> So the next time you bump into an MP, and they’re telling you how much this government does for veterans, don’t take them at their word. Tell them to prove it.


----------



## upandatom

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> I didn't want to post this under the Fantino or Mercer headlines to keep the focus on the topic and not the people talking about it. Rick's taking a swing at the Government here, but it begs me the question. How can the Federal Government allow their representatives to argue in court that it has no moral obligation to the Veterans. Is it really the age where ethics have become such a minor part of our government that politicians allow that? You can bet if anyone said that on the campaign trail, the other politicians would use it as a harpoon.
> 
> Thoughts?



He is always very outspoken against the government and always pushes for the veterans and the soldiers. He is one of the few that isnt biased and speaks factual information and truth. He does it in a very in your face kind of way, without being outright insulting to the Government. Which is very surprising because he airs on CBC. 

He (or his writers, assistants, fact finders) is someone you would want to have in the House on your side, he bluntly speaks the truth and doesnt tip toe around it.


----------



## reccecrewman

upandatom said:
			
		

> He is one of the few that isnt biased and speaks factual information and truth.



Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this assessment.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have a public figure of Mr. Mercer's stature championing the plight of Veterans, however, I must say that there is some slight of hand to this report of his.  First of all, to the statement he isn't biased - he specifically says "My buddy Paul...." right there he is stating he has personal ties to a friend who is a Veteran, and therefore, there is a degree of conflict of interest.  I'm NOT saying there is something wrong with his friendship, but the fact is, he has a friend who he is standing behind in this Veterans vs. Government issue. Bravo Zulu to his friend Paul for having a friend of influence that helps raise public awareness to Veterans needs.

My statement on the slight of hand to this particular rant is he says, and I quote his verbal report;

"My buddy Paul is a Veteran. He lost both his legs in Afghanistan.  Every year, they make him prove over and over again that his legs are still gone.  Four times they've said "Nope, we're not taking your word for it.  You have to prove they're still gone."  Literally, a note saying his legs have not grown back.  You know, in case he's pulling a fast one.  His friend was shot in the head and has to prove over and over again that he still has no vision in his left eye.  His left eye by the way, is made out of glass."

This statement is rather ambiguous in my opinion. First of all, to the average Canadian listening to this rant, it is wide open to interpretation.  He says every year they make him prove over and over again that his legs are still gone.  Well, WHO exactly is making him prove this? Doesn't say, but the implication is VAC or the Government is making this ridiculous demand of him.  Well, I don't know Mr. Franklin personally, so I can't say for certain what his financial situation is, but I am going to ASSUME that due to his condition, he was medically released from the Forces.  That being said, he would be receiving 75% of his salary from Manulife Financial.  Medically released personnel get 2 years salary from SISIP after release, but if their condition persists or is chronic, they get turned over to Manulife Financial for Long Term Disability benefits that will continue until age 65, with an ANNUAL REVIEW conducted every 12 months thereafter.  Once every twelve months, Manulife Financial sends out questionnaires to ALL of their benefit recipients that include a questionnaire that the member fills out, and a second questionnaire that they bring to their family physician to fill out.  All it is, is them asking the doctor what his professional medical opinion is on the individual concerned regarding their ability to function, work, take care of themselves etc etc. 

His comment on "Literally, a note saying that his legs have not grown back, you know, in case he's pulling a fast one" is a bit of sensationalism intended to get the average uninformed Canadian saying "Wow!!! This is terrible! Ridiculous and preposterous!"  In actuality, it is a standard practiced by ALL insurance companies across the board who are paying out LTD benefits to request an annual medical assessment of recipients to ensure they still qualify for benefits.  So, it's a INSURANCE company, NOT the Federal Government or VAC requesting a note stipulating his legs have not in fact, grown back.  

VAC is far from perfect, but they make enough s**t sandwiches to take big bites out of without having implied culpability placed on their shoulders for something that, quite frankly, isn't their burden to bear.  Perhaps the rant should have pointed out exactly who is requesting Mr. Franklin be forced to prove his legs are not going to grow back should have been clearly identified in the rant.  Mr. Franklin paid a helluva price and deserves whatever compensation he gets and then some, but at the end of the day, from an insurance company's point of view, he is no different than one of their benefit recipients who lost limbs in an industrial accident at work here in Canada, and for better or for worse, gets the same paperwork demands for due process, same as any of their other recipients.

I'm sure I'm going to have a big dogpile jump all over me for this, but, as upandatom stated that Rick Mercer speaks "factual information and truth", it's some smoke and mirrors in this rant.


----------



## The Bread Guy

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Mr. Franklin paid a helluva price and deserves whatever compensation he gets and then some, but at the end of the day, from an insurance company's point of view, he is no different than one of their benefit recipients who lost limbs in an industrial accident at work here in Canada, and for better or for worse, gets the same paperwork demands for due process, same as any of their other recipients.


I think some being critical of "the system" are upset _because_ it's being treated like an insurance system (which, in the case you give, it IS an insurance issue).



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'm going to have a big dogpile jump all over me for this, but, as upandatom stated that Rick Mercer speaks "factual information and truth", it's some smoke and mirrors in this rant.


No dumping from me - no issue with seeking the rest of the story (especially when media rarely covers the WHOLE story), no matter how good an individual someone may be.

In that vein, here's Paul Franklin's own version of events, for the record ....


> In regards to Rick Mercer's rant from the other day, I was contacted by Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole for a request for a telephone conversation about my file.
> 
> Here's my response:
> 
> Minister Erin O'Toole,
> 
> I have had many issues in my nine years as a wounded soldier and as a vet.
> 
> After returning in 2006, the Department of Defence (DoD) did amazing things and worked tiredly on the issue and where VAC (Veterans' Affairs) failed to deliver they stepped up. Upon my retirement "my file" of course went to VAC and to quote a great writer "and this is where my trouble began."
> 
> The legion wrote a piece about my struggles in the beginning called the "The Quiet Fight." I personally prefer that method but alas even that method is being taken from me. It would seem that if I fight for myself things may change for me, but not sadly for the 700,000 others.
> 
> I have had my wheelchair taken away from me twice. First while in hospital due to lack of payment when DOD and VAC were in argument about who pays.
> 
> The second was just last year when upon getting a new chair it was felt by VAC that I didn't get the appropriate paperwork -- which was a doctor's note saying "Due to transformal amputations, Paul Franklin needs a new wheelchair."
> 
> During the recent Manulife lawsuit, I was approved of a pension but was not to receive it until a doctor confirmed my limb loss. This is something that has to be done every year presumably until age 65.
> 
> My ex and I have separated and I obviously pay child support and help her out. Every year, VAC challenges that fact with an incredibly disturbing letter that implies that I am a dead beat, that asks if my child still lives, and what I do for them. In response, my ex has to write a horrible letter stating what I do.
> 
> She suffers horribly from secondary PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), a condition not widely recognized in 2006 and very misunderstood even today.
> 
> This is but a glimpse into what is laughingly called "my file" too which in reality is actually "my life."
> 
> As to my friend Rick and his rant the other day, I let him tell my story not for my benefit, but for all vets and their families that fight through this horror every day of their lives.
> 
> I fear that a conversation with me about "my file" may solve "my concerns" but not the concerns of the 700,000 others. Until we are treated by all parties with the respect, dignity, honour, and compassion we deserve, then I can't in good conscience take a phone call regarding my issues.
> 
> -- Paul Franklin, Mcpl (ret)
> 
> Amputee Coalition of Canada
> Soldier On
> Heros Hockey Challenge


----------



## Remius

Think of it as an editorial. It's an opinion.

As to him not being biased, well I think (and I could be wrong) what upandatem meant was "non-partisan" as I' have seen him roast everyone from all political spectrums in his rants.  He did years ago during the ice storm about how much we were getting paid.  But yeah, he has bias.

I'm not sure it's all smoke and mirrors though.  While yes, I suppose one would need a medical re-assessment for certain things, having to do it for something like lost limbs is absolutely the most retarded thing I've ever heard.  Someone, somewhere, high enough should have the wherewithal to realise just how stupid that is and make exceptions, clauses and whatever fine print they want to make certain exemptions.  It isn't complicated nor should it be.  If VAC has operated like this for god knows how long then whoever can effect change needs to be informed or slapped.  If this rant does either, then good.  

I'm not dogpiling on you either because you raise some good points.


----------



## George Wallace

Just to put this out there:  Not one of us is without bias.  




			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In that vein, here's Paul Franklin's own version of events, for the record ....



Well.  That was "straight from the horse's mouth".   It is a shame that our bureaucrats, in some positions, have become so "Black and White" and "By the Book" that they have lost any common sense when dealing with their responsibilities.  Once they have on file a record that says that the person they are dealing with is an amputee, or has a glass eye, or whatever, that will never rejuvenate/grow back/regain functionality, there should be NO requirement to annually verify something so obvious and already documented.  Such actions only prove that there are some people on the Government dole in positions of the Public Service, who are completely brain dead, when they cause more pain and grief to those they should be providing service to, than relief and support.


----------



## TCM621

The fact that they are making it so difficult for someone with just about the easiest injury to prove (nope, legs are clearly not there) it discourages those with harder to diagnose injury from even attempting to file a claim. That might be their goal, when you think about it. If a guy who is missing an eye or a leg has to jump through hoops to prove it every year, how is the guy with a knee injury the docs just can't figure out or chronic back pain from  20 years of humping a ruck, going to fare?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Every year I need to prove via a Doctors note to Manulife that somehow my gait has had a miracle and improved so that I no longer need the orthotics I've been wearing for over 20 years.

Sorry, but in my opinion this is just more of the kind of the " we are superior to normal Canadians" that has pretty much stopped me from reading/watching these rants.

Being a Veteran DOES NOT mean you are more, or less, then any other medically-conditioned Canadian...............get over it!!


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Every year I need to prove via a Doctors note to Manulife that somehow my gait has had a miracle and improved so that I no longer need the orthotics I've been wearing for over 20 years.
> 
> Sorry, but in my opinion this is just more of the kind of the " we are superior to normal Canadians" that has pretty much stopped me from reading/watching these rants.
> 
> Being a Veteran DOES NOT mean you are more, or less, then any other medically-conditioned Canadian...............get over it!!



As incorrect as I feel you are, I recognize you are not the only one with that opinion. 

I see a difference between those who simply got "hurt at work" and those who volunteered to stand on the wall and were hurt.  The later are special Canadians and they deserve special care and treatment.  Just my opinion and I have no doubt we disagree.


----------



## Strike

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Every year I need to prove via a Doctors note to Manulife that somehow my gait has had a miracle and improved so that I no longer need the orthotics I've been wearing for over 20 years.
> 
> Sorry, but in my opinion this is just more of the kind of the " we are superior to normal Canadians" that has pretty much stopped me from reading/watching these rants.
> 
> Being a Veteran DOES NOT mean you are more, or less, then any other medically-conditioned Canadian...............get over it!!



For me it's more the lack of ability for the person handling the file to have any type of free thought.  It's like dealing with someone in a call centre or help line.  They follow the script in the book and heaven help you if you try and get them to skip ahead.

Really, anyone handling a file should know that legs don't grow back, shot out eyes don't return and kids don't get over being autistic (an issue a friend has had to deal with yearly with CRA).  Now, if the person is handling a file for orthotics, cancer treatment, depression, chronic pain, or some other ailment, then sure, ask if it's still pertinent.  But that's the problem.  They are following steps in a book and get all flustered when asked to skip something or think for themselves.


----------



## Teager

When I made a claim for my injuries I had to see a VAC doctor. I have some large holes in my leg but that doctor assured me it would completely grow back. Well 8 years later I'm still waiting for that to happen. Maybe we are lizard soldiers? Also if your missing limbs or any other body part it shouldn't have to be reassessed . Things like the need for or thotics I could see being reassessed. Missing body parts and or thotics are 2 way different things.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Of course they are..............but the procedure is still the procedure.  Paperwork gets filled in and the machine will keep turning.........it's not a "poor friggin us" argument.  Sorry.....


----------



## Jarnhamar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Every year I need to prove via a Doctors note to Manulife that somehow my gait has had a miracle and improved so that I no longer need the orthotics I've been wearing for over 20 years.
> 
> Sorry, but in my opinion this is just more of the kind of the " we are superior to normal Canadians" that has pretty much stopped me from reading/watching these rants.
> 
> Being a Veteran DOES NOT mean you are more, or less, then any other medically-conditioned Canadian...............get over it!!



On one foot I agree with you.  I have a family member who can get up to 3 free pairs of shoes or boots a year through his insurance. I'm not sure the price cap but I was offered free $400ish Danner boots like it was a stick of gum.  He can essentially get these new boots every year and give them away or sell them or whatever.  So yes there is a capacity for a company loosing money due to fraud.

That said I think it's fair to say there is a significant difference between a bad gait and missing both your legs.  I don't think a bad gait qualifies someone as being disabled, this guy is pretty much stuck to a wheel chair and even if he gets new legs, he will never regrow legs.  I'll add a wheel chair that he's had taken away from him twice. That's a pretty big slap IMO.

I understand what you're saying about the military not being special (and I agree with that in a lot of cases) but having to prove you lost your legs every year is simply unacceptable whether you're a vet or never-served civilian.  

If you rear end me  I can go to a doctor with whiplash or something and tentatively get millions from your insurance company.  Soldiers are having their extremities blown off while serving their country and having to fight for years to get compensation that's a tenth of what they would get with civilian insurance.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Strike said:
			
		

> For me it's more the lack of ability for the person handling the file to have any type of free thought.  It's like dealing with someone in a call centre or help line.  They follow the script in the book and heaven help you if you try and get them to skip ahead.
> They are following steps in a book and get all flustered when asked to skip something or think for themselves.



Maybe because they wish to keep their jobs?  How often do you do your job as you think it should be done and not the way your COC has instructed  you to do it?


----------



## Teager

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Of course they are..............but the procedure is still the procedure.  Paperwork gets filled in and the machine will keep turning.........it's not a "poor friggin us" argument.  Sorry.....



You seem to be against change. The system is changeable. If it's changed for veterans then couldn't Canadians also have it changed and vice versa? I don't see anyone saying "oh poor us" More like these are the issues they aren't right let's try to fix them. Saying it is the way it is now shut up about it doesn't do anyone any good.


----------



## George Wallace

Teager said:
			
		

> You seem to be against change. The system is changeable. If it's changed for veterans then couldn't Canadians also have it changed and vice versa? I don't see anyone saying "oh poor us" More like these are the issues they aren't right let's try to fix them. Saying it is the way it is now shut up about it doesn't do anyone any good.



Bruce

Poor example on your part.  Sorry, comparing you gait to an amputation/missing body part was way out of line.

How often have we seen the Government change its Forms?  All it takes is for them to change their forms and add a BIG BOX on TOP that indicates whether or not the Claimant has a PERMANENT INJURY: ie. Amputation.  If that is not enough to stop this nonsense, then I think it is time to CLEAN HOUSE and lay off incompetent brain dead people working in the Public Service.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Not against change at all............the machine needs to be held accountable.  
Whining about having to fill in yearly paperwork to an insurance company is just sadly pathetic and makes all Vets look like fools................no other way to sugar-coat that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Bruce
> 
> Poor example on your part.  Sorry, comparing you gait to an amputation/missing body part was way out of line.
> 
> How often have we seen the Government change its Forms?  All it takes is for them to change their forms and add a BIG BOX on TOP that indicates whether or not the Claimant has a PERMANENT INJURY: ie. Amputation.  If that is not enough to stop this nonsense, then I think it is time to CLEAN HOUSE and lay off incompetent brain dead people working in the Public Service.



George.............start reading the whole thread before you post.   Go back to the last page and  READ this post.  Just how does firing the Public Service fix Manulife??  Enlighten me....


----------



## Strike

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Maybe because they wish to keep their jobs?  How often do you do your job as you think it should be done and not the way your COC has instructed  you to do it?



Of course I do, but if there is a problem or an issue for which I also have a solution, or a better way to achieve the same goal, I'll also bring that up.  You know me well enough to know I'm not one to sit there and be all yes sir, no sir.  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yes I do but in the end an employee can follow the script given or quit.  I'm sure none of them want to sound, and act, like moronic imbeciles................


----------



## krustyrl

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Every year I need to prove via a Doctors note to Manulife that somehow my gait has had a miracle and improved so that I no longer need the orthotics I've been wearing for over 20 years.
> 
> Sorry, but in my opinion this is just more of the kind of the " we are superior to normal Canadians" that has pretty much stopped me from reading/watching these rants.
> 
> Being a Veteran DOES NOT mean you are more, or less, then any other medically-conditioned Canadian...............get over it!!




It's just that..... your opinion.  Let others have their opinion either way.    Just sayin'.............


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

krustyrl said:
			
		

> It's just that..... your opinion.  Let others have their opinion either way.    Just sayin'.............



Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not fall in step?
Carry on.....


----------



## reccecrewman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In that vein, here's Paul Franklin's own version of events, for the record ....



First and foremost, I think Mr. Franklin deserves a helluva lot more than he's received.  At the same time, I don't believe that the vilification of VAC is going to help matters.  All that does is get a pile of angry guys ranting and raving and spawning stories of "I have a buddy who got royally screwed by VAC blah blah blah" and it feeds the rumour mill and fills peoples heads with all sorts of myth and BS when it comes to VAC.  One of the more popular ones being "VAC always declines first pension applications in the hopes you'll get frustrated and give up to save the Government money". This myth needs to be added to Snopes as a big FALSE.  Pensions get awarded to the Veteran who has a diagnosis and medical records and CF98's to back up their pension claim.  The bulk of pension denials come from a lack of medical documentation to tie the claimed condition to service - i.e the soldier who "sucks it up and soldiers on" without going to the UMS and then is stymied when he shows up to VAC looking for a pension but there's no paper trail in his med docs to award him a pension he deserves.  Too many myths have become truths in the minds of soldiers and Veterans because of misinformation and stories told that slants the readers/listeners minds against VAC. So, don't come back on me raging about how dare I question this mans dealings with VAC, I am about to shine some light on a (in my opinion) very short blog that is a Veteran venting his frustrations against VAC.  I say again, in my opinion, Mr. Franklin deserves at least a million dollars per leg, but I don't make those decisions but I also think the other side of the coin should be shown.

I've read this blog he posted, but this also raises a few other head scratchers - this directly from his blog piece;

"After returning in 2006, the Department of Defence (DoD) did amazing things and worked tiredly on the issue and where VAC (Veterans' Affairs) failed to deliver they stepped up. Upon my retirement "my file" of course went to VAC and to quote a great writer "and this is where my trouble began."

Now again, it's rather cloudy as it is a condensed article roughly outlining some of the hoops this guy has had to jump through, but I am being forced to use educated guesswork to fill in missing pieces.  "After returning in 2006..." I am assuming that this "returning" was his repatriation after being wounded in Afghanistan, "Department of Defence did amazing things and worked tirelessly on the issue and where VAC failed to deliver, they stepped up"

He acknowledges DND did amazing things for him upon his return, and that VAC somehow failed him.  Well.... VAC has no right to do anything for him at that point.  As long as a member is still serving, VAC cannot do SFA for a Veteran aside from granting him a pension. (He could have received VIP services at the time he was wounded, now it's DND's responsibility to provide VIP services for still serving members.) Their hands are tied! DND damned well SHOULD have done amazing things for him - the man lost his legs, I would expect nothing less than DND doing all they can to help this man and they had an obligation to do so. However, he says "where VAC failed to deliver, they stepped up." Well, there really wasn't much VAC COULD have done for him aside from granting him a pension (and possibly VIP services at the time).  Acknowledgement of his wounds and a pension, but after that, a still serving member is DND's responsibility to provide ALL medical care and aids for daily living, not VAC's, even if you have a pension.  Once he releases from the Forces, THEN it falls to VAC to provide anything he needs that is in relation to his pensioned condition. There NEVER should have been a bun fight over who pays for his wheelchair - if he was still serving (as I am believing he was since it doesn't say but is highly unlikely he was medically released that quickly after he was wounded.) DND was responsible to pick up the tab, not VAC.  The fact there was a bun fight over this contradicts the comment that DND did amazing things..... no, DND from the sounds of it, tried fluffing off their responsibility to provide him with a wheelchair that he desperately needed, and still does.

The second time he lost his wheelchair, and I quote directly from his blog;

"The second was just last year when upon getting a new chair it was felt by VAC that I didn't get the appropriate paperwork -- which was a doctor's note saying "Due to transformal amputations, Paul Franklin needs a new wheelchair."

Again, there's cloudiness here. At a glance, this is disgusting treatment.  No doubt exists Mr. Franklin needs a wheelchair and he damned certainly shouldn't have to pay for it either, but, playing some devil's advocate and the fact that I took a job at VAC after my own medical release, I have some knowledge as to how some processes work - I'm not saying I know all the details of his case, all I know is the information provided in this blog here, and as I mentioned, at a glance, this is unacceptable treatment of him on VAC's part.  However, VAC has clear cut policies and directives on aids for daily living such as wheelchairs, CPAP machines, hearing aids etc etc.  I'm merely GUESSING here, but from the information provided, it appears that Mr. Franklin obtained a scrip from his doctor saying he requires a wheelchair. Check. No argument there.  From that point he says " it was felt by VAC that I didn't get the appropriate paperwork -- which was a doctor's note saying "Due to transformal amputations, Paul Franklin needs a new wheelchair."  Ok, but it doesn't say what happened between getting that doctors scrip and what transpired thereafter.  

Educated guessing, but it appears that after obtaining the scrip, Mr. Franklin went to a provider and ordered a wheelchair as per his doctors scrip.  Also guessing, but he may have even paid for it out of his own pocket and then tried going to VAC for re-imbursement.  If this is the case, of course VAC wouldn't have paid for it.  Or perhaps he ordered the wheelchair, then when it arrived, tried going to VAC to pay for it without paying out of pocket.  Either way, once he had gotten a doctors note, he should have gone straight to VAC with that scrip, they would have sent out an Occupational Therapist to his home for a full assessment of his needs.  Maybe he has 2 floors and needs a chair lift installed, a custom bathtub he could get in and out of with ease.... The O.T then would have done up a full assessment and submitted it, then Mr. Franklin would have been called by VAC to tell him he needs to bring in at least 2 different quotes from 2 providers and his wheelchair would have been taken care of by VAC. Again, I'm doing guesswork to fill in HUGE holes here, but I guarantee that if a Veteran shows up at VAC with a scrip for a wheelchair, walker, scooter etc etc., the process will get done to ensure they get the aids they need.  It just sounds like a very unfortunate mix up that caused Mr. Franklin distress he didn't need.  Perhaps he was not informed on the proper process to obtain a wheelchair from VAC once he was released from the CF.  That would be completely understandable and a logical explanation as to how this occurred in the first place, but the information on services ought to have been on hand at a SCAN seminar when he was releasing.  Or... maybe this was all VAC's fault from the get-go, but I think there's more here than is revealed.  Fact is, we'll never know. When we believe we've been wronged, the story we share is the story that will garner the most support for our cause.  I'll say this again though, regardless of all I've written, this shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to downplay what this man has endured.  I have all the respect in the world for him, and his statement to finish that blog on not being willing to take a call from the MVA was a move beyond selfless class.  He puts others before himself and in my opinion, the price he paid deserves to be given priority.  I just feel there's more to some things than meets the eye and I just wanted to point out a glance at the flip side of the coin.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Of course they are..............but the procedure is still the procedure.  Paperwork gets filled in and the machine will keep turning.........it's not a "poor friggin us" argument.  Sorry.....



I deal with both Manulife and VAC. There is an astronomical difference in how each works and how they treat their clients. Manulife is straight forward, no bullshit, file your paperwork, get paid.

Nothing about VAC even remotely resembles it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> and the fact that I took a job at VAC after my own medical release



I was wondering why you sounded so much like my Case Manager, defending her job.

Just an observation.


----------



## Petard

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Perhaps he was not informed on the proper process to obtain a wheelchair from VAC once he was released from the CF.  That would be completely understandable and a logical explanation as to how this occurred in the first place, but the information on services ought to have been on hand at a SCAN seminar when he was releasing.  Or... maybe this was all VAC's fault from the get-go, but I think there's more here than is revealed. .



Fair enough comments, but your assumption about SCAN seminars are incorrect, at least from the one I attended in London 2 years ago, and another in Toronto last year. Both were incredibly vague, and the default seem to be this will be covered during your release interview with a VAC rep, if you haven't already dealt with VAC.

I released last year, and my interview with the VAC rep wasn\t all that useful either, best could be summed up in "read our website"


----------



## reccecrewman

recceguy said:
			
		

> I was wondering why you sounded so much like my Case Manager, defending her job.
> 
> Just an observation.



Thank you, but I'm not a Case Manager defending my job, I was an Administration CR4.  If you read my comments, I was quite open to the fact that VAC certainly has it faults.  If people get defensive that someone is stepping up to say "Hey, maybe this point of view should be dissected a little to try and get the _full_ story" rather than just being content to keep a blindfold on and open wide to accept whatever shyte on a spoon gets shovelled into our mouths, well, so be it - your prerogative. 



			
				Petard said:
			
		

> Fair enough comments, but your assumption about SCAN seminars are incorrect, at least from the one I attended in London 2 years ago, and another in Toronto last year. Both were incredibly vague, and the default seem to be this will be covered during your release interview with a VAC rep, if you haven't already dealt with VAC.
> 
> I released last year, and my interview with the VAC rep wasn\t all that useful either, best could be summed up in "read our website"



On this matter, I also said "ought" to have been covered in a SCAN seminar.  I assume nothing with regards to a SCAN as I have attended more than one and know full well the information quantity and quality can greatly vary.  However, that being said, there has to be an onus on the individual to seek out information to get informed.  If I'm medically releasing and need a CPAP machine and hearing aids, I would have those as a priority question to find out what I need to do after I release to ensure I have no hiccups when the time comes to replace them. As for VAC Transition Interviews when your releasing, they are what you make of them.  There is a set standardized spiel that a CSA will rhyme off for the interview, and if the member answers "Nope, good to go!" when the CSA finishes their spiel and says "Any questions?", well, off he goes with the bare minimum information and his clearout card stamped.  If the member engages and asks questions, chances are high they will leave the T.I with plenty of good information.

Also on this note, I am also fully aware that the standards across VAC District Offices Canada-wide vary greatly (they shouldn't, but do - like I said from the get-go, VAC has plenty of faults) so yes, the Transition Interview an individual gets at the Windsor D.O can be completely different from another T.I at the Pembroke D.O, but there are required check boxes that are to be ticked off at each and every T.I.  Some CSA's go above and beyond to offer advice and help specific to soldiers' particular cases as they interview them, others don't.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

recceguy said:
			
		

> I deal with both Manulife and VAC. There is an astronomical difference in how each works and how they treat their clients. Manulife is straight forward, no bullshit, file your paperwork, get paid.
> 
> Nothing about VAC even remotely resembles it.



Your last name must go to a different case worker then mine.............just got my money from summer 2013's claim in January 2015 after they kept sending it back time after time for "new" info. [even though they've paid before and there will never be 'new' info]
No media required here.......


----------



## kratz

I've been to SCAN seminars in Borden and Halifax. I made solid notes each time.

So far, I have only experienced one major issue that is woefully under served through these seminars.

In my experience so far, the system works for those who ask questions, read, research and follow policy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Thank you, but I'm not a Case Manager defending my job, I was an Administration CR4.  If you read my comments, I was quite open to the fact that VAC certainly has it faults.  If people get defensive that someone is stepping up to say "Hey, maybe this point of view should be dissected a little to try and get the _full_ story" rather than just being content to keep a blindfold on and open wide to accept whatever shyte on a spoon gets shovelled into our mouths, well, so be it - your prerogative.



You must have misunderstood when I said "Just an observation."

I did not delve into your current prose on VAC, nor did I take any stand either way.

I simply said you sound like my Case Worker.

Don't get so defensive.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Your last name must go to a different case worker then mine.............just got my money from summer 2013's claim in January 2015 after they kept sending it back time after time for "new" info. [even though they've paid before and there will never be 'new' info]
> No media required here.......



Maybe you should change your name to Woodhouse and try for the same one.

It's either that, or my charming personality is at fault.


----------



## TCM621

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Every year I need to prove via a Doctors note to Manulife that somehow my gait has had a miracle and improved so that I no longer need the orthotics I've been wearing for over 20 years.
> 
> Sorry, but in my opinion this is just more of the kind of the " we are superior to normal Canadians" that has pretty much stopped me from reading/watching these rants.
> 
> Being a Veteran DOES NOT mean you are more, or less, then any other medically-conditioned Canadian...............get over it!!



Bruce, that is just not correct. Name one other occupation in which the employee can be ordered in to harms way? Fire fighters and police are close but if they think it isn't safe, they don't have to go. If we need to locate the enemy, while Charlie team is taking a bound and hopefully they won't get shot. 

The other difference is that not only can we essentially be ordered to subject our body to injury or death, we have no seat at the table when it comes to deciding our benefits. Police and fire have unions. Other occupations have unions or can just turn around and quit if they don't want to risk their body. 

We need to know that the government will have our backs. If we don't, then we can't be effective. It isn't about how manulife works or if VAC  is full of heartless Bastards. It is about can we trust the government to do right by us if something terrible happens? 

There isn't that feeling right now. I am willing to bet Stephen Harper, the person, cares as much about wounded vets as he says he does. But somewhere between that personal feeling and government lawyers attempting to claim that they are not held to the promises made in the crowns name in the past (incidental this is a central point to native treaties being honoured) there is a problem. There are probably many problems. And they all need to be aired as publicly as possible until a solution is found.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think what everyone here is missing is that Mr. Monkhouse has made it abundantly clear in the past that he believes no veteran should get anything special for service-connected injuries. He feels we get the same right of refusal for unsafe work, proper safety equipment, and do not do anything remotely physically or mentally dangerous that should warrant special treatment because we're a volunteer Forces. I absolutely believe that'd he'd be singing a different tune if he had sustained a serious injury during his service.

Unfortunately, the ignore feature doesn't work for quotes, so I still get to see his absolutely insane assertion that a CAF member losing his legs to an IED strike is somehow even remotely related to his own personal struggles with requiring orthotics for an improper gait. That, in itself, should show the board exactly who you're trying to argue with. If it doesn't; read some posting history on his consistent attacks on anything VAC/benefits related for CAF members.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone post on these boards asking that VAC give us gold-plated pensions and luxury cars for our service to our country. We're not Michael Blais. People here are simply looking for a fair and equitable shake akin to Worker's Compensation awards for injuries that we sustain in situations where we can't say "No, this isn't safe", and timely actioning of claims. I'm quite positive that Mr. Franklin would hand back all the money he fought from VAC to get, if he could turn back time and have his legs back.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...and that's where you are so wrong.   I absolutely think Vets should get a much better shake then they're getting.

My assertion is simply this, if an old soldier like myself can get tired of hearing the 'noise', then just imagine what someone who isn't that much of a supporter feels.  Funny, lots of folks agree with me privately, but don't jump in here because they don't want to be tarred like myself.  Fair enough...

Does anyone remember OCAP?  Yup, media darlings for a few years here in Ontario until folks got sensitized to their outrage........then the media stopped calling because there was no outrage to sell papers, and now they're just a ghost.
I'm afraid when average Canadians look deep into things like Mr. Mercer's rant, and see it is actually all about filling in a form once a year, they will lose the outrage at the treatment some Vets are getting.
And if we lose the media then watch how low it sinks................


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think I've ever seen anyone post on these boards asking that VAC give us gold-plated pensions and luxury cars for our service to our country. We're not Michael Blais. .



PuckChaser?  How many times have you been quoted and photographed by the media?  Well that guy who wants all that gets it all the time......
So who, and what, does Joe Public think while skimming the headlines for about seven seconds each morning?


----------



## Teager

> I would like to thank Paul Franklin for his blog post and sharing his personal story with Canadians, including frustrations related to access to service and benefits from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC).
> 
> Paul is an outstanding Canadian and an inspirational veteran. His participation in the Soldier ON Relay that culminated on Parliament Hill on the National Day of Honour last year was a testament to his continued passion and drive as a proud Canadian, but more importantly, his accomplishments in the face of adversity serve as an example to other veterans and Canadians as they struggle with their own physical or mental injuries.
> 
> I would also like to thank Rick Mercer for using his platform as a celebrity to highlight issues that need to be looked at when it comes to the care of our veterans. I know he does this out of genuine compassion. Rick served as the Honourary Colonel of my old Squadron (423 Squadron in Nova Scotia), so I know of his personal commitment to military families and veterans.
> 
> Shortly after my appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs, I instructed my Department to reduce the complications related to applying for benefits or updating their file in relation to ongoing services or benefits from VAC. This is a critical part of the new vision we are imparting into the department as part of the Veteran-centric approach to service. Any administrative process that serves to delay or complicate support need to be fixed or eliminated. Even more importantly, if an administrative hurdle or form actually goes so far as to impact the overall wellness of the veteran, there is something seriously wrong because everything VAC is structured to do is to help ease the burden of transition for a veteran after their service injury.
> 
> Several weeks ago, when I learned about the potential requirement for a veteran who has lost a limb to have to continually verify their injury I asked for this to be examined to ensure such a procedure never takes place. I also reached out to Paul to try and learn more about the specifics of his situation. To date, my department is ensuring that this is not a requirement from a VAC administration requirement and we are determined to work with third party insurance providers to ensure that such requirements are not part of the process facing the veteran either.
> 
> I am committed to ensuring that we work diligently to reduce the administrative burden placed in front of veterans by my department and to ensure we get processing times reduced to alleviate some of the stress upon the veteran that is inherent from the process of waiting. VAC will strive for service excellence with the viewpoint of the veteran and their family at the heart of our moves to cut red tape and complexity in dealing with our department. Striving means that we will never be satisfied and should always be looking to do better. By sharing his frustration in his blog, Paul is helping all veterans by making us do better.
> 
> Per Ardua ad Astra,
> Erin O'Toole, P.C., C.D., M.P.
> Minister of Veterans Affairs



http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/erin-otoole/veterans-lost-limbs_b_6633620.html

Seems to me that even the VAC Minister agrees with bringing issues out into the open and into the public.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Is this the sort of thing he should be learning from a blog?


----------



## PuckChaser

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Is this the sort of thing he should be learning from a blog?



I don't think it matters how he finds out about issues, only that they are fixed once he's aware of them. He's already far better than Fantino, and his social networks use is a great way to get in touch with modern veterans. I don't think we should hammer him for any sort of communication, because that's what what was sorely lacking from previous MVACs.


----------



## FSTO

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Is this the sort of thing he should be learning from a blog?



I would hope the minister would send a letter to him first.


----------



## Strike

It came out on FB after somebody posted on the Minister's FB page about the issue and he then contact Paul through FB asking if he could PM him his number.  This happened in the past week.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't think it matters how he finds out about issues, only that they are fixed once he's aware of them. He's already far better than Fantino, and his social networks use is a great way to get in touch with modern veterans. I don't think we should hammer him for any sort of communication, because that's what what was sorely lacking from previous MVACs.



I agree and disagree. I think he should be throughly in the loop but agree that the issues are being handled quickly.


----------



## Teager

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I agree and disagree. I think he should be throughly in the loop but agree that the issues are being handled quickly.



He should be in the loop but for whatever reason there is a disconnect. I've seen this before but on the DND side of the house. Myself and other wounded soldiers were asked to explain our issues to a room full of Generals and other higher ups. From there they were able to give direction and make things happen and happen quickly to solve those issues. Minister O'Toole is listening to veterans to understand there view and how the system affects them and try to make change from there even if it's from social media. 

I know I read somewhere that Mike Blais even said that the VAC Minister needs to connect more through social media as more modern vets are active there then in the legion. So maybe he's trying that out as a means of connecting with modern veterans.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So far we've heard, again, nothing but talk and promises. The proof is in the pudding. Let's see substantial action.

However for his first hundred days, given the openness, identifying issues by actually consulting with Veterans and promising to fix them, he's light years ahead of that neanderthal Mr. Fantino.


----------



## Teager

recceguy said:
			
		

> So far we've heard, again, nothing but talk and promises. The proof is in the pudding. Let's see substantial action.
> 
> However for his first hundred days, given the openness, identifying issues by actually consulting with Veterans and promising to fix them, he's light years ahead of that neanderthal Mr. Fantino.



I don't have full confidence in him yet until results are shown. Part of me feels that he is sincere and wants to help since he served himself. I can't see him throwing vets under the bus but I will wait and see what happens before I'm done forming my opinion of him.


----------



## MJP

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> My assertion is simply this, if an old soldier like myself can get tired of hearing the 'noise', then just imagine what someone who isn't that much of a supporter feels.  Funny, lots of folks agree with me privately, but don't jump in here because they don't want to be tarred like myself.  Fair enough...



Bruce I fully agree with you.  I think everyone is in violent agreement that the situation needs the change but the folks we have fronting us in the media are a bunch of all or nothing blowhards.  There are many that advocate a measured approach but like all things moderate they don't go spouting off to the media every time things go pear shaped.  I have said it before but most so called veterans advocates certainly don't speak for me, I am rather embarrassed by the bleating I hear daily.  I know I am not the only one that feels this way.


----------



## ModlrMike

Two observations; both probably unpopular...

1. Just because we don't see changes doesn't mean they're not being worked on. Compensation and benefits are extremely complex and are made more so when you involve Treasury Board. The challenges associated with fixing the NVC will not change overnight, neither can they be solved by a stroke of the Minister's pen, no matter how much we want them to be.

2. While it's easy to rail at the Minister for the failings of his department, the truth is that nothing happens in government unless the bureaucrats want it to. The unwritten first rule of leadership is that you can't make someone do something, they have to want to for whatever reason (loyalty, honour, fear etc). Ministers come and go, the bureaucracy remains. If they don't want to play ball with the current office holder, all they have to do is wait until the next guy comes along. That being said, Mr Frankin et al should not have to file the same paperwork for missing limbs year after year, and there's no excuse for asking them to. 

3. We, collectively, have to get our crap together. A thousand voices claiming to represent the masses only serves to drown out those who truly do. When our self appointed advocates can barely string ten words together in a coherent manner then we're not well served. 

Ok... that was three, but I had to get the last one off my chest.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> 2. While it's easy to rail at the Minister for the failings of his department, the truth is that nothing happens in government unless the bureaucrats want it to. The unwritten first rule of leadership is that you can't make someone do something, they have to want to for whatever reason (loyalty, honour, fear etc). Ministers come and go, the bureaucracy remains. If they don't want to play ball with the current office holder, all they have to do is wait until the next guy comes along. That being said, Mr Frankin et al should not have to file the same paperwork for missing limbs year after year, and there's no excuse for asking them to.


I'm going to counter-balance this with 2a) Bureaucrats are there to tell the Ministers why something can't be done, or whether something lines up with all the other rules that have to be followed.  There are also times, though, when the Minister will do whatever the #$%^& s/he wants, and the bureaucracy has to get 'er done, with _their_ names on the paperwork once the Minister's gone - check here, here and here.

We'll see ....


----------



## Jarnhamar

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Fire fighters and police are close but if they think it isn't safe, they don't have to go. If we need to locate the enemy, while Charlie team is taking a bound and hopefully they won't get shot.



Or be ordered to remove their gas mask to test the air to see if it's safe for everyone else.

The stuff soldiers deal with through the VA office (and places like CF housing) simply wouldn't fly with civilians.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> So far we've heard, again, nothing but talk and promises. The proof is in the pudding. Let's see substantial action.
> 
> However for his first hundred days, given the openness, identifying issues by actually consulting with Veterans and promising to fix them, he's light years ahead of that neanderthal Mr. Fantino.



I get a really good vibe from him. It feels like he means business and will deliver.

I keep seeing people saying that you can't change things over night.  I bet if he started firing people left and right and people's fat juicy paychecks were at risk we would start seeing some over night improvements.


----------



## ModlrMike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I bet if he started firing people left and right and people's fat juicy paychecks were at risk we would start seeing some over night improvements.



I bet those same people are covered by PSAC or some similar labour group and are therefore immune from summarily being fired, so that's not really a viable option.


----------



## McG

The EXs are the ones who should take the heat, and they are not protected by PSAC.


----------



## Occam

MCG said:
			
		

> The EXs are the ones who should take the heat, and they are not protected by PSAC.



 :goodpost:

Now that's proper target identification.  Far too often the workers in the Public Service take a bashing over policy, when the average public servant doesn't even get a say on policy issues.  If I get told to stop spending, I stop spending.  Don't aim heat at me because someone 5 levels above me in the hierarchy tied the purse strings in a knot.


----------



## brihard

Teager said:
			
		

> He should be in the loop but for whatever reason there is a disconnect. I've seen this before but on the DND side of the house. Myself and other wounded soldiers were asked to explain our issues to a room full of Generals and other higher ups. From there they were able to give direction and make things happen and happen quickly to solve those issues. Minister O'Toole is listening to veterans to understand there view and how the system affects them and try to make change from there even if it's from social media.
> 
> I know I read somewhere that Mike Blais even said that the VAC Minister needs to connect more through social media as more modern vets are active there then in the legion. So maybe he's trying that out as a means of connecting with modern veterans.



The minister is very definitely engaging aggressively through social media. He has been in direct contact with CVA, Send Up The Count (me specifically), the various regional Veterans' Well Beings Networks, and with specific individuals he has identified through or been referred to by same. By 'direct contact' I mean he's been personally talking with a bunch of us, and is saying over and over that he wants to hear what we've got to tell him personally or gleaned through or networks. Yes, action will speak much louder than words. He's been in the job only a month so far, and his reaching out has earned him the benefit of the doubt from me. I suspect he's been given a pretty broad mandate of "identify issues and within reason fix them" from the PM- a mission, commander's intent, and his left and right of arcs. I look forward to seeing what results. What I'm seeing so far suggests he's the right guy for a crappy and difficult job.


----------



## blackberet17

Occam said:
			
		

> Far too often the workers in the Public Service take a bashing over policy, when the average public servant doesn't even get a say on policy issues.  If I get told to stop spending, I stop spending.  Don't aim heat at me because someone 5 levels above me in the hierarchy tied the purse strings in a knot.



Thank you! As one of those 5 levels below...


----------



## blackberet17

I think Minister O'Toole is more interested in putting the proverbial best foot forward than his predecessor was. His introduction last week or two weeks ago to VAC staff at HO, and his short speech, from talking with colleagues, was well received.

My only wish is he isn't simply putting actions out there to ensure he is reelected in Fall 2015.


----------



## PuckChaser

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> My only wish is he isn't simply putting actions out there to ensure he is reelected in Fall 2015.



To turn that around, he could be putting in the effort to get reelected (all politicians want reelection) so he can continue with the MVA portfolio and fix whats wrong.

I'm glad he's articulating his vision to the coalface workers in VAC, their buy-in will really show where the roadblocks are in the EX level so changes can be made.


----------



## blackberet17

Of note, few if any of the EX pers were on the floor...


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm glad he's articulating his vision to the coalface workers in VAC, their buy-in will really show where the roadblocks are in the EX level so changes can be made.


 :nod:



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> To turn that around, he could be putting in the effort to get reelected (all politicians want reelection) so he can continue with the MVA portfolio and fix whats wrong that a majority Conservative government couldn't fix in four years.


FTFY - if a party can't get 'er done with a majority it's not afraid to use as required, it either _can't_ be done by _anyone_, or it will cost more than the government is willing to spend, based on the potential for cutting other things people want more.



			
				blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Of note, few if any of the EX pers were on the floor...


I hear they usually get their _own_ chat  ;D


----------



## blackberet17

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I hear they usually get their _own_ chat  ;D



What I would give to be a fly on the wall for such a chat, with Minister O'Toole and our new DM in the room...


----------



## OldSolduer

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> What I would give to be a fly on the wall for such a chat, with Minister O'Toole and our new DM in the room...



Yes.....it would be interesting.

I reckon the chats the coal face receives is much different from what the senior execs receive.

It would be similar in a unit when the new CO speaks to the troops, then his RSM, company commanders aNd CSMs separately.


----------



## reccecrewman

This just on todays news;

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/veteran-tired-of-government-making-him-prove-he-lost-his-legs-1.2227180

At the top of the headline, the eye grabbing headline - "Veteran tired of Government making him prove he lost his legs"

Again, no the Government is NOT making him prove he lost his legs! He says, and I quote "every year there are assessments that are done through Manulife which is the insurance and uh, the insurance agency that we use and uhh then through Veterans Affairs that you actually have to prove uhh your condition and uhh unfortunately for me, I have to prove I still have no legs every year."

Rewind for a moment.... his own words clearly identify that every year there are assessments that are done through *Manulife*. Manulife, as I mentioned in an earlier post is the insurance company DND has hired to handle Long Term Disability benefits.  BLUE CROSS is the insurance company VAC deals with.  DND & VAC, Manulife and Blue Cross - four completely separate entities.  Where he ends up stumbling immediately after saying assessments are done through Manulife, somehow, he attaches Veterans Affairs to his statement. VAC has no place in that statement. Veterans Affairs has JACK SQUAT to do with Manulife Financial!!!  No, they are NOT asking a soldier to prove his legs are still gone! They are sending out an ANNUAL ASSESSMENT that they send to EACH and EVERY client they handle for LTD benefits to check to see if they are still eligible for continued coverage.  Amputees from civilian industrial accidents, truckers who may have lost limbs in an accident on the highway, soldiers who lost a limb overseas.  His legs are gone, and his annual assessment he completes every year will most likely indicate "no change from last year" and his benefits will continue uninterrupted. Period.

I am a huge advocate for Veterans getting their due, but not at the expense of integrity.  Parlour tricks, smoke and mirrors to muddy the waters and hope to paint VAC as some sort of Department whose sole mission is to deny Veterans deserved benefits is not the way to do it.  As Mr. Monkhouse pointed out earlier, we lose the media, we lose the Canadian peoples support.  Who remembers wearing a uniform in 1995?  The CF couldn't dig a deep enough hole to hide in so large was the target on their back and the Canadian public in general didn't give a damn about the Military, cut more from Defence spending was the popular mantra of the decade.

I have to question the professionalism of CTV News.  They just throw up a story that will generate viewership without screening the story for facts.  I agree with Mr. Franklins assessment of the NVC, always have.  The NVC is junk and it does no service to Veterans compared to the Pension Act.  The Rehab Program is the only really useful thing in the NVC.  They could have (should have) simply incorporated the Rehab Program into the Pension Act, but instead, modern and future Veterans are getting screwed with their cheap buy-off lump sums.  I sincerely hope Mr. O'Toole and the Harper Government get their act together and make the appropriate changes.

A reporter who decides to really do some actual investigative journalism into the full story here could come up with too many facts that will make Mr. Franklins good arguments he does make end up seeming hollow, which would be very unfortunate given he appears to have a soapbox that is garnering attention.

My last observation to that interview, and again, I may get dogpiled for pointing it out - The Directorate of Honours & Recognition (DH&R) gives some very clear cut direction on the wearing of medals.  The effigy of The Queen of Canada is supposed to be visible on mounted medals.  The Sacrifice Medal, South-West Asia Service Medal and Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal are all mounted with the reverse, rather the proper *obverse* clearly showing.  In my opinion, that in itself shows a disrespect to orders and regulations. Come to think of it.... orders and regulations are what Manulife Financial is following by having ALL their benefit recipients file that paperwork each year.


----------



## reccecrewman

One other thing I'd like to point out that highlights Manulife's position on sending these forms out for continued benefit coverage.... yes, an individual may lose both legs, but, he very well may end up re-entering the workforce in a new occupation that pays him MORE than he was making in the Military, or more than his 75% salary benefit covers.  If that is the case, their Manulife 75% salary benefit would end.  I give you MCpl. (Ret'd) Jody Mitic, Ward 2 Councillor for the City of Ottawa.  Mr. Mitic was almost certainly a recipient of Manulife LTD benefits after he lost both his legs in Afghanistan.  The 2013 salary for a City Councillor was listed at $93,999.00.  I'm sure it's been bumped up some since then, but now that he is earning that salary, he is no longer eligible for that 75% salary benefit from Manulife - his circumstances have changed for the better.  This is why they send out that ANNUAL ASSESSMENT.  To ask if your situation has changed or improved to find out if you are indeed eligible for benefits.  It is what is it.


----------



## Teager

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> One other thing I'd like to point out that highlights Manulife's position on sending these forms out for continued benefit coverage.... yes, an individual may lose both legs, but, he very well may end up re-entering the workforce in a new occupation that pays him MORE than he was making in the Military, or more than his 75% salary benefit covers.  If that is the case, their Manulife 75% salary benefit would end.  I give you MCpl. (Ret'd) Jody Mitic, Ward 2 Councillor for the City of Ottawa.  Mr. Mitic was almost certainly a recipient of Manulife LTD benefits after he lost both his legs in Afghanistan.  The 2013 salary for a City Councillor was listed at $93,999.00.  I'm sure it's been bumped up some since then, but now that he is earning that salary, he is no longer eligible for that 75% salary benefit from Manulife - his circumstances have changed for the better.  This is why they send out that ANNUAL ASSESSMENT.  To ask if your situation has changed or improved to find out if you are indeed eligible for benefits.  It is what is it.



That's incorrect. Manulife needs to know if you get employment right away not wait until an assessment form shows up. If you get employment you are to notify Manulife and submit your pay stubs to them. You may still be eligible to receive money from Manulife if your income from employment falls below the benefit paid. Manulife will balance it out. If you make more as in your example then you will not receive any more from Manulife. However if you loose your employment it is important again to contact Manulife and inform them of this because you may be eligible to receive the benefit again.


----------



## reccecrewman

Not incorrect at all. Absolutely everything I said in my above statement is 100% correct. You added some extra information than I had, but what I said was correct. Yes, you are required to notify immediately and not wait for the form, but guess what? There have been countless instances of people NOT informing right away. I said if you make more than your benefit allows, you'll be taken off. Stop picking pepper from flyshit. It's a once a year inconvenience which I can attest to because I've been doing it since my own medical release. I have no issue whatsoever with doing some paperwork once a year to have my benefits continue. It's a process, not a news story. "Veteran made to fill out Assessment Forms for extended benefits coverage annually" Guess that's just not a story seller.

How many PEN forms does a soldier fill in during a year? I've had years where I filled out as many as 10.  Once a year, I have to go stand in a line at Service Ontario to renew my license plate sticker.... no changes occurred, why can't they just send me my sticker and save me the arduous task of filling out a form and waiting in line?  How about taxes? Every year, the Government makes me fill out forms to submit my taxes! Does this sound like a legitimate gripe? No. It's part of life and it's an administrative process.  So too is filling out my Manulife forms.


----------



## Petard

If nothing else, the way in which Paul Franklin tried to explain his situation does show how much he misunderstands who is covering what.
It kind of underlines what I was getting at earlier, that many don't get very good information to begin with as they begin the release process.

It sounds like his release happened relatively quickly, and it would just be an assumption of mine, but someone who just got his legs blown off in combat is more than likely going to have some trouble dealing with that trauma, and may not be able to focus entirely on what he should be researching in order to ask the right questions in getting help. 

Reccecrewman, I get that the the mileage will vary, considerably, between the amount of advice you get at one VAC district office compared to another, but it should not be a game of "I'll give you an answer if you know the right questions to ask". A few simple statements from the member should be enough to get some kind of advice from the VAC rep, not terse short answers because the clock's running until the next appointment

In the end I suppose Paul Franklin's story does nothing to support the legal action this thread is about, but it is maybe a cautionary tale about how much you really need to dig for answers yourself.

In the FWIW dept, I still don't understand why the plaintiffs are using a constitutional approach to their law suit, instead of centering it on what their case has in its evidence: a comparison of payouts under the NVC to LTD granted in civilian compensation programs. The GoC's legal representation, I think, would then have a difficult time justifying their argument of "no obligation"; you can't on the one hand identify veterans as being no different than anyone else making a claim for a disability, but then limit that payout based on the fact they are a veteran.

 There certainly seems to of been enough all along to accelerate a review of the NVC, just not sure if it was necessary to sue the Gov't to do that. 
All together, it does look like in the long run the review of the NVC is going to lose traction, and this legal case isn't necessarily helping.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Not incorrect at all. Absolutely everything I said in my above statement is 100% correct. You added some extra information than I had, but what I said was correct. Yes, you are required to notify immediately and not wait for the form, but guess what? There have been countless instances of people NOT informing right away. I said if you make more than your benefit allows, you'll be taken off. Stop picking pepper from flyshit. It's a once a year inconvenience which I can attest to because I've been doing it since my own medical release. I have no issue whatsoever with doing some paperwork once a year to have my benefits continue. It's a process, not a news story. "Veteran made to fill out Assessment Forms for extended benefits coverage annually" Guess that's just not a story seller.
> 
> How many PEN forms does a soldier fill in during a year? I've had years where I filled out as many as 10.  Once a year, I have to go stand in a line at Service Ontario to renew my license plate sticker.... no changes occurred, why can't they just send me my sticker and save me the arduous task of filling out a form and waiting in line?  How about taxes? Every year, the Government makes me fill out forms to submit my taxes! Does this sound like a legitimate gripe? No. It's part of life and it's an administrative process.  So too is filling out my Manulife forms.



You can renew online in less than 10 minutes. There's your pepper 

You equate filling out your tax forms with someone else having to prove they have no legs every year?


----------



## Jarnhamar

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Once a year, I have to go stand in a line at Service Ontario to renew my license plate sticker.... no changes occurred, why can't they just send me my sticker and save me the arduous task of filling out a form and waiting in line?  How about taxes? Every year, the Government makes me fill out forms to submit my taxes! Does this sound like a legitimate gripe? No. It's part of life and it's an administrative process.  So too is filling out my Manulife forms.



 I totally feel sorry for you having to stand in line to fill out a form.  Come to think of it it's unfair Paul Franklin get's to sit on his ass while you're standing. You should complain and see if they can install benches for you.  Fairs fair.


----------



## reccecrewman

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I totally feel sorry for you having to stand in line to fill out a form.  Come to think of it it's unfair Paul Franklin get's to sit on his *** while you're standing. You should complain and see if they can install benches for you.  Fairs fair.



Are we done with the martyrdom? Seriously!  The point is filling out a questionnaire once a year to extend your benefits IS NOT A NATIONAL NEWS ISSUE! It takes about 30 minutes to complete, ONCE A YEAR.

Not to mention, he, and the news agencies keep on saying VAC or the Government is making him do this year after year - NO! It's the INSURANCE COMPANY! I get a lot of people love to hate on VAC and the Government, but the axe he has to grind with regards to his annual questionnaire does NOT involve the Government or VAC!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Are we done with the martyrdom? Seriously!  The point is filling out a questionnaire once a year to extend your benefits IS NOT A NATIONAL NEWS ISSUE! It takes about 30 minutes to complete, ONCE A YEAR.
> 
> Not to mention, he, and the news agencies keep on saying VAC or the Government is making him do this year after year - NO! It's the INSURANCE COMPANY! I get a lot of people love to hate on VAC and the Government, but the axe he has to grind with regards to his annual questionnaire does NOT involve the Government or VAC!



And neither is it part of the thread and the lawsuit. We've squirreled around a bit with it, but it's time to get back to the actual subject.

Go start another thread if you still need your soapbox.

No more derails and tangents.

---Staff---


----------



## Jarnhamar

When DND sent the mother of a slain soldier a check for 1 cent I seen enough people defending DND saying it's the systems fault and it's just how it is.

That's not a valid excuse anymore than "that's how we've always done it".

If this is "just a part of the system" then we can change the system. If it's the insurance company that's being hammerheads then the government can butt heads with them and fix it. It sounds like Mr O'Toole intends to do just that.  That goes for the rest  of the VA shirt comings too.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> When DND sent the mother of a slain soldier a check for 1 cent I seen enough people defending DND saying it's the systems fault and it's just how it is.
> 
> That's not a valid excuse anymore than "that's how we've always done it".
> 
> If this is "just a part of the system" then we can change the system. If it's the insurance company that's being hammerheads then the government can butt heads with them and fix it. It sounds like Mr O'Toole intends to do just that.  That goes for the rest  of the VA shirt comings too.



You are bang on the money!


----------



## NSDreamer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> When DND sent the mother of a slain soldier a check for 1 cent I seen enough people defending DND saying it's the systems fault and it's just how it is.
> 
> That's not a valid excuse anymore than "that's how we've always done it".
> 
> If this is "just a part of the system" then we can change the system. If it's the insurance company that's being hammerheads then the government can butt heads with them and fix it. It sounds like Mr O'Toole intends to do just that.  That goes for the rest  of the VA shirt comings too.



 Here's hoping.


----------



## Strike

From the recent announcement of promotions and positions:



> •Brigadier-General M.P. Jorgensen will be seconded to Veterans Affairs Canada.



This might make things interesting.  Looks like they are trying to clean the place up a bit.


----------



## blackberet17

Strike said:
			
		

> •Brigadier-General M.P. Jorgensen will be seconded to Veterans Affairs Canada.



???

Interesting...as what!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Strike said:
			
		

> From the recent announcement of promotions and positions:
> 
> This might make things interesting.  Looks like they are trying to clean the place up a bit.


Not the first time they've sent people in uniform that way ....


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3716
> 
> (....)
> 
> * Brig.-Gen. H.F. Jaeger was seconded to Veterans Affairs Canada, in Ottawa;
> 
> (....)


My memory is weak on specifics, but other military folk have also been seconded to VAC over time.  Appointments are easy, change not so much - especially if it'll cost $.


----------



## blackberet17

Right, but BGen Jaeger had a specific task, as the National Medical Officer. http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/news/salute/article/768

I can't find from BGen Jorgensen's bio what his role could be. I know there's been talk of a Surgeon Gen or new NMO, but...

Otherwise, we have LCol Morse and CWO Patterson here with the Liaison Office...


----------



## Teager

Seems that renewals for VIP at VAC will now be every 3 years with 6 months to submit the paperwork.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/02/27/vets-will-need-to-verify-_n_6771856.html


----------



## upandatom

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> This just on todays news;
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/veteran-tired-of-government-making-him-prove-he-lost-his-legs-1.2227180
> 
> At the top of the headline, the eye grabbing headline - "Veteran tired of Government making him prove he lost his legs"
> 
> Again, no the Government is NOT making him prove he lost his legs! He says, and I quote "every year there are assessments that are done through Manulife which is the insurance and uh, the insurance agency that we use and uhh then through Veterans Affairs that you actually have to prove uhh your condition and uhh unfortunately for me, I have to prove I still have no legs every year."
> 
> Rewind for a moment.... his own words clearly identify that every year there are assessments that are done through *Manulife*. Manulife, as I mentioned in an earlier post is the insurance company DND has hired to handle Long Term Disability benefits.  BLUE CROSS is the insurance company VAC deals with.  DND & VAC, Manulife and Blue Cross - four completely separate entities.  Where he ends up stumbling immediately after saying assessments are done through Manulife, somehow, he attaches Veterans Affairs to his statement. VAC has no place in that statement. Veterans Affairs has JACK SQUAT to do with Manulife Financial!!!  No, they are NOT asking a soldier to prove his legs are still gone! They are sending out an ANNUAL ASSESSMENT that they send to EACH and EVERY client they handle for LTD benefits to check to see if they are still eligible for continued coverage.  Amputees from civilian industrial accidents, truckers who may have lost limbs in an accident on the highway, soldiers who lost a limb overseas.  His legs are gone, and his annual assessment he completes every year will most likely indicate "no change from last year" and his benefits will continue uninterrupted. Period.



Ill agree Canadian Media is an absolute joke, they do whatever they can and spin alot to meet their own needs and end state. However, I will say this....

*Why is the Government, DND, and VAC allowing Manulife to request this. Why is it not cleared up, or written before hand. do not make an amputee have constant reassessments, that is the issue at hand. The previous listed entities have obviously given the instruction to have this completed, and a phone call, followed by a memo and a change of policy would stop this from occurring.*

That is the issue. Their should be certain levels of benefits, say a class 5 is the worst, they are amputees etc. would not need constant reassessment unless otherwise directed, or a change of status or QOL has changed for the worse.


----------



## Strike

Because even in the worst case scenario a situation can change, and now that they are talking about only reporting every three years it may make matters worse for some.

Imagine someone who uses an electric chair and requires specialized computers and programs. We all know how quickly software and hardware can change, but now someone has to wait 3 years? Heck even service members get new glasses every 2 years.


----------



## PuckChaser

The issue here has to be the wording. Whats wrong with a form once a year stating " I have/have not any new needs with respect to my _______ claim from VAC." Turn it from "proving you still don't have legs" to affirming you do not require further support, or if your condition has worsened.


----------



## blackberet17

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The issue here has to be the wording. Whats wrong with a form once a year stating " I have/have not any new needs with respect to my _______ claim from VAC." Turn it from "proving you still don't have legs" to affirming you do not require further support, or if your condition has worsened.



Looking for a "like" button.

But hey, don't be talking sense there, PuckChaser.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Strike said:
			
		

> Because even in the worst case scenario a situation can change, and now that they are talking about only reporting every three years it may make matters worse for some.


If it's changed to "_no more than_ once every 3 years", you're right - problem.

One hopes (and I'd love to hear from someone in the know) if this means that if there's a change, for the better or worse, you can get some intervention sometime between the "where're you at?" letters.


----------



## McG

> *Ottawa harasses injured soldiers*
> Department of veterans affairs needs a total shake-up, a different mindset and a staff trained to put people before paperwork.
> Carol Goar
> Toronto Star
> 05 Mar 2015
> 
> 
> 
> At the tail end of question period on Friday, Feb. 27, Pierre Lemieux, parliamentary secretary of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, rose in the House of Commons to announce good news. Veterans with lost limbs would no longer be required to verify their condition annually. The cycle would be lengthened to once every three years.
> 
> Opposition MPs shook their heads in disbelief. Why would the government ask amputees to confirm that their legs or arms were still missing? Did it think they grew back? Did it suppose wounded veterans stopped needing wheelchairs or housekeeping help or income replacement? Did it believe Canadians want soldiers who pay a grievous price serving their country to be treated like cheaters or parasites?
> 
> Lemieux, who spent 20 years in the armed forces, took exception to this characterization. “Through eight budgets, our government has earmarked over $5 billion in new funding to improve the benefits and services that we provide to veterans and their families,” he pointed out. “We are here to help veterans.”
> 
> It certainly didn’t sound that way.
> 
> An aide to Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole stepped in to clarify the policy. “Veterans who have been granted entitlement for a disability benefit for any service-related injury or condition are not asked to prove their disability again,” Marton Magnan explained. “Veterans Affairs has a responsibility to proactively update the government to ensure they have the necessary support and treatment for their current condition.”
> 
> His interpretation made more sense, but didn’t fit the evidence. Bureaucrats aren’t qualified to assess the medical needs of severely injured veterans. That is the role of doctors and physiotherapists. If a change in arrangements is warranted — a veteran gets a prosthesis, for instance — he or she can ask the department for a review at any time.
> 
> At best, this was a case of bad communication. At worst, it was confirmation that the department of veterans affairs is more interested in tidy paperwork than the well-being of wounded soldiers.
> 
> This fiasco — the latest of dozens — was prompted by a complaint from Master Corporal Paul Franklin who lost both legs in a suicide bombing in Kandahar nine years ago. Since retiring from military service, he has been caught in a bureaucratic nightmare. The department of veterans affairs required him to fill out a renewal form each year for the benefits he is receiving. Twice, as a result of these reviews, he was deprived of his wheelchair while bureaucrats sorted out his eligibility.
> 
> In early February Franklin went to CTV in frustration. That prompted the minister to call him personally and promise relief.
> 
> Lemieux’s announcement was the result: The review process stays, the frequency changes.
> 
> This can’t be dismissed as a fumble by an inexperienced backbencher. Lemieux is a three-term MP who served as parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister until he was assigned to veterans affairs in January. He was a member of the special House of Commons committee on the Canadian mission in Afghanistan and deputy whip for the government.
> 
> Nor can ministerial incompetence be blamed. O’Toole, appointed in January after Julian Fantino’s troubled tenure, is a decorated air force captain and a corporate lawyer who was brought in to defuse the tension between veterans and Ottawa. He treated Franklin with respect and tried to rectify the situation.
> 
> The department does not appear to be understaffed or underfunded. It has 2,755 employees to serve 200,000 clients, most of them requiring little care. Its budget of $3.6 billion has gone up by 30 per cent since the Conservatives took power. There is nothing wrong with its mandate: “to support the men and women who put their lives at risk defending this country and its values.” And its performance in some areas — organizing commemorations, sending out war veterans’ allowances and delivering retirement benefits — is satisfactory.
> 
> But when it comes to tasks requiring judgment or sensitivity it consistently falls down. Its staff expects disabled veterans to conform to the department’s policies and programs. It inundates them with paperwork. It responds to complaints with form letters telling them how to comply with the rules.
> 
> Well-intentioned tinkering, as O’Toole attempted, won’t solve the problem. It is too deeply embedded in the culture of the 92-year-old department. What is needed is a total shake-up led by a prime minister with a different mindset, executed by public officials committed to improving and delivered by employees trained to fit programs to people, not the reverse.
> 
> Canada’s troops willingly put their physical and mental health on the line for their country. They should never have to beg for rehabilitation or support when they come home with broken bodies or tormented minds.


http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/03/05/ottawa-harasses-injured-soldiers-goar.html


----------



## Teager

This article from the National Post shows the differences in some of the benefits Canada has versus other allies. How accurate it is is hard to say.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/benefits-for-wounded-canadian-veterans-do-not-stack-up/article23381161/


----------



## The Bread Guy

Veeeeeeeeeery interesting ....


> A class-action lawsuit launched by dissatisfied Afghan veterans is on hold because settlement talks are underway, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> The legal challenge, which has become a political black eye for the Conservative government, was put into abeyance recently at the B.C. Supreme Court, two federal sources said Thursday.
> 
> The decision — effectively a time-out from legal proceedings — was taken because both sides were facing court-imposed deadlines to file further submissions in the case.
> 
> Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, confirmed settlement talks are underway with the government, but declined to give details.
> 
> "When the new minister came in, we'd had approaches to talk," Sorochan said ....


Fingers crossed ....


----------



## dogger1936

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Veeeeeeeeeery interesting ....Fingers crossed ....



Thanks for this very good news.


----------



## McG

Teager said:
			
		

> This article from the National Post shows the differences in some of the benefits Canada has versus other allies. How accurate it is is hard to say.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/benefits-for-wounded-canadian-veterans-do-not-stack-up/article23381161/







 Canada​  USA​  UK​ Australia​








*Lump Sum*

A lump-sum payment of up to $306,698.21 which can be taken in a single payment or spread out over multiple payments. The amount offered depends on the degree of disability. Someone with mild hearing loss, for instance, might collect just $14,929, while someone who has lost the complete function of their lower limbs and is confined to a wheelchair might receive the maximum. Of the 45,615 veterans granted a lump-sum payment between 2006 and 2014, just 185 received the maximum. It is non-taxable.

*Earnings loss*

An earnings-loss benefit of 75 per cent of salary for two years (or longer if the veteran is taking part in a vocational or rehabilitation plan), all of which is taxable and from which any outside earnings are deducted dollar-for-dollar for veterans who are permanently and totally incapacitated and at 50 cents on the dollar for those in a rehabilitation plan. For those who are permanently incapacitated and unable to work after the two-year period has ended, the benefits can continue to age 65, with annual inflation increases of up to 2 per cent.

*Impairment allowance*

There are three grades to this allowance with the lowest being $584.66 monthly, which is what most veterans get. The middle grade pays $1,169.33 a month and the highest grade pays a maximum of $1,753.97. In addition, there is supplement for most, but not all, veterans who are receiving the permanent impairment allowance of $1,074. The allowance and the supplement are taxable.
*Disability pension*

Tax-free disability pension ranging from $167.58 for someone with no dependents and only a mild impairment, to as much as $4,010 per month for a severely incapacitated veteran with one spouse and a child. In addition, there are supplements of up to $10,836 monthly for those with dependents who are severely disabled and need special help.
*Lump Sum*

Lump-sum benefits are available up to a maximum of $1,092,348. This was originally set in 2005 at half that amount but was doubled in 2008 when it was deemed inadequate.

*Severely disabled*

Severely disabled veterans receive 100 per cent of their military salary tax-free for life.
*Lump Sum*

Lump-sum benefits of up to $420,207 are available, but veterans can choose instead to receive this as a fixed-rate weekly pension which, for someone who starts receiving payments at the age of 25 and dies at the age on 80, would amount to a total of $902,261. This is tax-free.

*Severely disabled*

Lump sums are awarded for spouses and children of severely disabled vets. For each child, for instance, a veteran would receive $80,956.51.

*Earnings loss*

An earnings-loss benefit pays 100 per cent of the difference between what veterans were making before their injury and what they are making after their injury, for the first 45 weeks of incapacity. When the 45-week period ends, they are paid between 75 per cent and 100 per cent of the difference between what they were making preinjury and post-injury, depending on how many hours they are able to work. These payments are taxable.


----------



## Teager

Thanks MCG I was meaning to come back and post from the article time got away from me.


----------



## prairefire

It will be interesting to see what new offer the GoC will put on the table to stop this lawsuit. Looking at my own case, I am 57 and have been receiving a 20% pension for a back injury since 1991 and three subsequent disability awards for Hearing, Tinnitus and PTSD. To convert those disability awards to the equivalent monthly pension payments would require a tripling of the amounts awarded if I live to age 87.


----------



## blackberet17

One thing the G&M article alluded to is the different benefits available. While there are more benefits available under the NVC than were ever available under the PA, most of us are still hung up on the monthly pension versus the lump sum. It is quite possibly the single largest sticking point.

I provided a breakdown/example a while ago, here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/106421/post-1179188.html#msg1179188


----------



## Teager

This is a proposal from the Equitas Society site. It's a proposal for a Canadian Military Covenant and a Military Veterans Bill of Rights. They are looking for feedback and feedback can be posted here:

http://equitassociety.ca/comments6.html

Proposal: http://equitassociety.ca/Sorochan_Memo_Veterans_Covenant_Bill%20.PDF


----------



## blackberet17

There is a Veterans Bill of Rights already, enacted by the Harper government in 2007, and formed a part of the Conservative election platform in 2006:

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/veterans-bill-of-rights/vbor
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/pdf/bill_of_rights_VAC.pdf
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2007/04/03/prime-minister-harper-announces-new-bill-rights-and-ombudsman-veterans


----------



## Fishbone Jones

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> There is a Veterans Bill of Rights already, enacted by the Harper government in 2007, and formed a part of the Conservative election platform in 2006:
> 
> http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/veterans-bill-of-rights/vbor
> http://www.veterans.gc.ca/pdf/bill_of_rights_VAC.pdf
> http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2007/04/03/prime-minister-harper-announces-new-bill-rights-and-ombudsman-veterans



I think Teager and Equitas are talking about a true, substantial and honest Veterans Bill of Rights. One that actually accounts for and places Veterans first.

Not the useless, unfair piece of garbage that the Party's on the Hill passed.


----------



## Teager

If you read the link to the proposal the third paragraph states:



> This Military Veterans Bill of Rights is based upon the existing (non-statutory) Veterans Bill of Rights (which I am told was largely based upon the largely unknown Public Servants Bill of Rights) but with additions that we believe are needed to make it a meaningful document to protect the rights of veterans and their families.


----------



## blackberet17

The sad part is, some federal party will probably latch onto the Equitas Society's "new" Military Veterans Bill of Rights, use it in their election platform to garner veteran community votes, and then...well...

I think my sarcasm meter is on high today...


----------



## McG

I wonder if Paul Franklin was successful in his conversation with the minister .... or if the conversation even happened.



> Paul Franklin, veteran and amputee, fears 'degrading' paperwork may never end
> *Double amputee believes he shouldn't have to prove his legs are gone on an annual basis*
> By Sophia Harris, CBC News
> 27 Mar 2015
> 
> Ex-soldier Paul Franklin bristles at the thought of the next round of paperwork to prove yet again to the federal government that he’s still a double amputee who qualifies for disability benefits.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs is promising reforms, including a complete review of "every piece of correspondence that goes to a veteran and their family."
> 
> ​But the Afghan vet says he’s doesn’t believe there will be change. At least not until the day the government finally stops threatening to cut off his benefits unless he routinely updates paperwork on his permanent disability.
> 
> "To prove it's being done, then show me a form that says all we're asking you to do is go to your doctor once, get a diagnosis of amputation, and you will never have to fill this form out again," he says.
> 
> In 2006, Franklin lost his legs in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan.
> 
> The veteran sparked public outcry last month when he complained about having to annually verify the loss of his legs to keep receiving disability benefits.
> 
> CBC’s Rick Mercer even did a rant about the issue.
> 
> "It's bad enough being disabled, but it's another thing to go in there and feel like you're begging to prove that you're disabled, just in order to maintain your quality of life," says Michael Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.
> 
> Every year, Franklin has to complete a form to keep receiving his long term disability benefits, overseen by the Department of National Defence.
> 
> He showed us his annual renewal form. It asks him, once again, to answer questions about his current medical condition, his physical limitations, and to list any improvements.
> 
> "Well, no, [my condition] hasn't changed because I am a permanently disabled guy with no legs. It can't change. It's impossible to change," says a frustrated Franklin.
> 
> He says he finds the form, which also requires a doctor's signature, demeaning: "It's pretty crazy and it's idiotic. It's degrading to my service."
> 
> He also doesn't enjoy filling out annual paperwork to continue his home care assistance benefits with the Veterans Affairs' Veterans Independence Program (VIP). He says its questions include reconfirming all the chores he has difficulty doing — from vacuuming to snow removal.
> 
> "My injury is so obvious, why wouldn't I have problems?" he asks.
> 
> Franklin also showed CBC a warning letter he received from Veterans Affairs this past June when he was late completing his annual form. It stated he wouldn’t get his next grant until he sent it in.
> 
> After Franklin raised a furor about his forms, Veterans Affairs proposed changes and applauded the ex-soldier for igniting the debate.
> 
> "We have learned a lot from the case Paul Franklin has brought forward, and I thank him for raising these concerns," said O’Toole in the House of Commons on March 12. He added, "We are already making changes."
> 
> Those changes began on Feb. 27 with the announcement that veterans will only have to reapply for VIP benefits every three years instead of annually
> 
> Franklin was hardly moved by the change. "It's so stupid that I'm not sure that warrants a response," he says.
> 
> The minister also promised to improve Veterans Affairs' communications with all ex-soldiers.
> 
> O'Toole announced in the House that he has established a task force to ensure veterans’ paperwork "focuses on their wellness, is easy to understand and, for serious cases, to see whether we can eliminate it entirely."
> 
> And, even though it's not his department, O'Toole promised to tackle those long-term disability forms.
> 
> "I will also be asking the insurer for the Canadian Forces long-term disability program to try to adopt the same approach," he said
> 
> But skepticism runs deep for many vets.
> 
> Franklin says he’s still waiting for the day he receives a renewal form asking him not to describe his medical condition or the chores he can't do, but instead lists questions like, "Are there deteriorating conditions that maybe we could help you with? Do you find life a struggle and we're not meeting the need as best we could?"
> 
> Blais, the veteran’s advocate, worries the government will face resistance from the private insurance company that administers long-term disability benefits.
> 
> "[The minister] has to convince the insurance company to change the annual reporting and I don't know if Manulife is willing to do that," says the ex-soldier.
> 
> Manulife Financial told CBC News in an email, "In order to effectively administer long-term disability benefits, insurers periodically request updated information to assess ongoing eligibility for benefits."
> 
> For his part, O’Toole has tried to reach out to Franklin, who isn’t returning his calls. The minister even resorted to Facebook twice this month to ask the veteran to contact him.
> 
> "I know [he will give me] politician's answers, so I'm doing the immature thing by not talking to him," admits Franklin.
> 
> But he aims to break the impasse tonight at the Heroes Hockey Challenge in Toronto. He believes the minister will be attending.
> 
> The ex-soldier plans to find a quiet place at the event to lay out his concerns to O’Toole.
> 
> "I fully expect nothing will happen unless we stand up and say enough is enough," says Franklin.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/paul-franklin-veteran-and-amputee-fears-degrading-paperwork-may-never-end-1.3010961


----------



## Teager

> CBC News has learned the Conservative government will announce legislation Monday that will create a new payment worth up to $70,000 for soldiers who have been seriously injured in the service of their country.
> 
> The new benefit will apply only to the most seriously wounded soldiers, but will also be applied retroactively.
> 
> This change is yet another action taken by the government in recent weeks to improve the suite of benefits available to Canadian veterans.
> 
> Erin O'Toole, veterans affairs minister, moves to address complaints
> Paul Franklin, veteran and amputee, fears 'degrading' paperwork may never end
> Erin O'Toole, Jason Kenney say reservists will get same benefits as regular force
> New Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole, who took over from Julian Fantino in January, has travelled the country promising veteran amputees they won't have to verify lost limbs, expanding benefits for reservists and grants for "informal caregivers" of injured veterans to hire help.
> 
> However, neither the new award nor any of the other changes address the key complaint of veterans: the loss of monthly pensions as a benefit for all wounded vets under the New Veterans Charter introduced in 2006.
> 
> The official government notice paper dated Friday said O'Toole will announce “An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.”



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/seriously-injured-soldiers-would-get-up-to-70-000-from-new-payment-1.3014197


----------



## Rifleman62

Announce all you want. A Vet still has to get their case past the wall of VAC  culture of what one here says is: "deny, deny deny, then die"


----------



## The Bread Guy

Also, announcing legislation - which may not get passed before the election - in the last months of a _*majority*_ government deserves, at best, a golf clap.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Plus, while an improvement, is still cheaper than bringing back a monthly pension payment.


----------



## Teager

A little more info.



> Harper Government announces new benefit for Canadian Armed Forces members and Veterans
> Benefit to recognize and compensate for very serious injuries and diseases
> 
> OTTAWA, March 30, 2015 /CNW/ - The Honourable Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, unveiled today the proposed new Critical Injury Benefit (CIB), which will provide a $70,000 tax-free award to support the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members and Veterans.
> 
> The proposed new CIB is intended to address the immediate impacts of the most severe and traumatic service-related injuries or diseases sustained by CAF members and Veterans, between the time the injury or disease occurs and the time when their condition becomes medically stable. The CIB is in recognition of the stress and hardship CAF members and Veterans go through in the weeks and months following a sudden event resulting in traumatic injury or disease. The CIB is intended to work alongside the existing benefits and supports delivered by Veterans Affairs Canada for which injured Veterans are eligible, and it is separate and apart from disability award payments.
> Benefit to recognize and compensate for very serious injuries and diseases
> 
> OTTAWA, March 30, 2015 /CNW/ - The Honourable Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, unveiled today the proposed new Critical Injury Benefit (CIB), which will provide a $70,000 tax-free award to support the most severely injured and ill Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members and Veterans.
> 
> The proposed new CIB is intended to address the immediate impacts of the most severe and traumatic service-related injuries or diseases sustained by CAF members and Veterans, between the time the injury or disease occurs and the time when their condition becomes medically stable. The CIB is in recognition of the stress and hardship CAF members and Veterans go through in the weeks and months following a sudden event resulting in traumatic injury or disease. The CIB is intended to work alongside the existing benefits and supports delivered by Veterans Affairs Canada for which injured Veterans are eligible, and it is separate and apart from disability award payments.
> 
> This announcement was one element of the new Support for Veterans and their Families Act introduced in the House of Commons today to provide new support for CAF members and Veterans, and their families. Along with the Critical Injury Benefit, other proposed initiatives in this new legislation include:
> 
> the Retirement Income Security Benefit for moderately to severely disabled Veterans beginning at age 65 and their survivors;
> the Family Caregiver Relief Benefit for eligible Veterans requiring ongoing informal care—a tax-free grant of $7,238 annually;
> the addition of a purpose statement to the New Veterans Charter recognizing the Government's obligation to CAF members, Veterans and their families; and
> the authority for Veterans Affairs Canada to provide advice and information to CAF members and Veterans, and make decisions on applications for benefits and services prior to their release from the military to help them successfully transition to civilian life.
> 
> 
> Quick Facts
> 
> The new Critical Injury Benefit will be one of many supports available to serving members and Veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces with service-related injuries or diseases.
> The Critical Injury Benefit focuses on those who need it the most: Veterans who endure sudden and severe injury or disease while in the line of duty.
> The Critical Injury Benefit will work in concert with existing services and benefits to establish a continuum of support from the onset of a severe and traumatic injury or disease.
> The Critical Injury Benefit will be paid to eligible CAF members and Veterans who have suffered a sudden, severe and traumatic injury or developed an acute disease since April 1, 2006.
> 
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> "This new benefit will provide immediate recognition and compensation to CAF members and Veterans who have made a tremendous personal sacrifice, and will provide them with security and peace of mind following a critical injury or illness. Our Government will continue to support Canada's Veterans and ensure the changing nature of the needs of Veterans is met with the best possible service."
> 
> The Honourable Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> Associated Links
> 
> Government of Canada announces enhanced lifetime support for injured Veterans and their families – News Release
> Minister O'Toole strengthens benefits for reservists – News Release
> Government of Canada announces new benefits and services for Veterans and families – News Release
> Services and Benefits for Veterans
> Mental Health Enhancements
> Disability Benefits
> 
> 
> Veterans Affairs Canada is committed to ensuring Veterans are treated with the care, compassion and respect they deserve. Veterans and their families are at the center of everything we do. #VeteranCentric
> 
> Backgrounder
> 
> Proposed new Critical Injury Benefit for
> Canadian Armed Forces members and Veterans
> 
> A number of programs and services are currently in place to ensure that the health, rehabilitation and financial needs of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members and Veterans are met.
> 
> The proposed new Critical Injury Benefit (CIB) would provide a $70,000 tax-free award for CAF members and Veterans who, since April 2006, experienced a severe and traumatic injury or developed an acute disease caused by a sudden and single event which resulted in an immediate and severe impairment and interference in quality of life.
> 
> This benefit is in recognition of the immediate stress and hardship a CAF member or Veteran experiences after a traumatic incident. It spans the time between the initial incident and when the CAF member or Veteran becomes medically stable.
> 
> The proposed new CIB funds would be paid directly to the CAF member or Veteran and are separate and apart from disability award payments. The Critical Injury Benefit focuses on those who need it the most: Veterans who endure sudden and severe injury or disease while in the line of duty.
> 
> Other Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada benefits already cover expenses incurred by family members who are traveling to be with the injured or ill CAF member.
> 
> As part of the Department's continued commitment to Veteran-centric care, and in order to reduce wait times, Veterans Affairs Canada employees will proactively contact Veterans who have experienced a severe service-related injury or disease to discuss this new benefit.
> 
> Example of who could benefit from this new payment
> 
> Richard is a paratrooper who was involved in a training accident and fell three stories. He sustained a severe concussion, internal injuries and multiple fractures. He had multiple surgeries and needed intensive rehabilitation to regain strength and the ability to walk. Over time, Richard recovered and was deemed medically stable. While he applied for a VAC disability award, he did not receive a payment because he did not have a permanent disability. However, due to the severity of his injuries, he would now be eligible for the proposed new Critical Injury Benefit.
> 
> A continuum of care
> 
> While recognition for the most severely injured is the focus of today's announcement, it must be viewed as part of a spectrum of services and supports available to CAF members and Veterans. Benefits and services such as rehabilitation and vocational assistance, and the Health Benefits Program, for example, are designed to help support the needs of ill and injured Veterans.
> 
> SOURCE Veterans Affairs Canada



http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1510405/harper-government-announces-new-benefit-for-canadian-armed-forces-members-and-veterans


----------



## RobA

Jeez could they be anymore vague? What does that criteria even mean?

Considering injuries are paid out at a specific % point, it would be only too easy to say "x% is the cutoff" or whatever.

Sounds like it's somethibg that sounds good they can point too at the election, but left so vague that very few people actually get the benefit.


----------



## PuckChaser

Its a press release, its not the actual legal text of the document. If they sat and spouted off the entire legalese, how many people would be asleep by Para 2?


----------



## Teager

> OTTAWA – Veterans at the centre of a class-action lawsuit against the federal government are waiting to see whether legislation introduced this week by the Harper government to improve benefits is the beginning, or the end, of reforms to the system.
> 
> If it’s the end, the lawyer for the ex-soldiers says the politically embarrassing court fight is, in all likelihood, back on.
> 
> Don Sorochan says he will have to consult his clients, but his view is that the measures announced by the Harper government over the last month represent easy fixes and that more is to come.
> 
> “If it is the end of it, I would think the answer would be pretty simple: It’s not enough,” he said.
> 
> The lawsuit, which argues that modern-day soldiers are discriminated against compared with troops who fought the two world wars and Korea, was put on a hold earlier this year as the two sides entered settlement talks.
> 
> Sorochan says it is possible the government, or the opposition parties, could promise more during the coming election campaign, but the ex-soldiers will have to make decisions based upon what’s in front of them.
> 
> The time-out in the lawsuit ends on April 15, but the two sides could elect to extend it if they believe there’s value in continuing discussions.
> 
> The lawsuit has been a black eye for the Conservatives, who pride themselves on supporting the troops and Sorochan says the government had been insisting that it be dropped immediately in light of the recent improvements.
> 
> “We are certainly interested in continuing the talks, but we will have to reassess where we are in the lawsuit, given the reforms,” said Sorochan. “We’ve already done some analysis, but the point is, these weren’t supposed to be the end of the reforms.”
> 
> Since the beginning of March, the new veterans minister, Erin O’Toole, has announced a series of measures, including a new $70,000 pain and suffering award that appears aimed at the physically injured. There is also a new proposed retirement income security benefit for moderately and severely wounded soldiers without military pensions and new programs for caregivers.
> 
> The government has also expanded access to the permanent impairment allowance, which gives the most severely disabled veterans up to $2,800 a month in tax-free income for life.
> 
> In their statement of defence against the lawsuit, government lawyers offended veterans by saying the government has no extraordinary obligation towards soldiers and that the current government cannot be bound by political promises made by previous governments, notably by Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden during the First World War.
> 
> The Conservatives pledged to include a recognition of that so-called “sacred obligation” in the preamble to the new legislation, which was tabled Monday in the House of Commons.
> 
> Bill C-58 says its purpose “is to recognize and fulfil the obligation of the people and government of Canada to show just and due appreciation to members and veterans for their service to Canada. This obligation includes providing services, assistance and compensation to members and veterans who have been injured or have died as a result of military service and extends to their spouses or common-law partners or survivors and orphans.”
> 
> It also says legislation should be “liberally interpreted.”



http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1328187/veterans-lawsuit-hinges-on-more-improvements/


----------



## PuckChaser

Here's the text of the act:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=7907037&File=29#1

Note the clear usage of the word "obligation" in the purpose.

Changes aren't going to happen overnight, and any veteran who thinks that'll happen served their entire career with their heads in the sand. Nothing happens fast, but there's at least actions in the form of legislation to back up the talk from the new MVA.


----------



## RobA

so anyone know how the parlimentary portion works? What kind of timeframe there would be on this, and is theere a website or something to check the status of it as it goes through parliament?

BTW, I spoke wiith Heather from Equitas. This is not related to the "settlement" talks that appear to be ongoing. They are monitoring the situation with regards to the benefits announced the past few weeks, but the lawsuit is still ongoing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

RobA said:
			
		

> so anyone know how the parlimentary portion works? What kind of timeframe there would be on this, and is theere a website or something to check the status of it as it goes through parliament?


You can check the Parliament of Canada web page here for the latest:  where it's at in the process, the latest version, etc.


----------



## RobA

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You can check the Parliament of Canada web page here for the latest:  where it's at in the process, the latest version, etc.



TY


----------



## Teager

Here is the latest. Don't know what this means in terms of the lawsuit.

http://equitassociety.ca/EQUITAS%20COMMENDS%20PARLIAMENTARIANS%20FOR%20UNANIMOUS%20RESOLUTION%20SUPPORTING_%20CANADIAN%20VETERANS.pdf


----------



## Teager

Lawsuit is still in talks but a bit of an update.



> NDP’s motion helps veterans’ suit against Ottawa, lawyer says
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> Published Thursday, May. 14 2015, 10:46 AM EDT
> Last updated Thursday, May. 14 2015, 10:59 AM EDT
> 
> An opposition motion endorsed by the Conservatives that recognizes Canada’s obligations to retired members of the military provides additional ammunition to a suit brought against the government by disabled veterans, their lawyer says.
> 
> The motion introduced by New Democrat MP Fin Donnelly says there is a “covenant of moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation” between Canadians and past and present members of the Canadian Forces who have been injured or killed during their military service. It goes on to say that the government is obligated to provide “equitable financial compensation and support services” to current and former members of the military and their dependants.
> 
> Although the Conservatives supported Mr. Donnelly’s motion in a vote on Tuesday night, the government has taken a different position in defending the lawsuit brought by a group of disabled modern-day veterans who say the New Veterans Charter leaves them poorly compensated compared with those who fought in the two world wars and Korea.
> 
> Federal lawyers have argued that the suit before B.C.’s Supreme Court should be dropped because, among other things, the government has no special legal obligation to soldiers. When the court rejected that argument, the government appealed.
> 
> The case is on hold, at least until the end of month, while the veterans and the government try to reach a settlement out of court. The abeyance period could be extended if the talks are moving forward.
> 
> But, if the case resumes and government presses ahead with its appeal, Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the veterans who are at the centre of the lawsuit, said a unanimous vote of the House to Commons that says the government does have an obligation to veterans would bolster his arguments.
> 
> “I would probably apply to re-argue the appeal on the basis of the change of government position,” Mr. Sorochan said.
> 
> He said he would also point to a “purpose clause” contained in recent legislation called Bill C-58 that was introduced by Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole to improve the payouts to disabled new veterans. It says the government has an obligation to show due appreciation for military service to Canada by providing services, assistance and compensation to members of the Forces and veterans who have been injured or families of those who have died in the line of duty.
> 
> “That, plus the unanimous vote in the House of Commons of NDP MP Fin Donnelly’s motion are welcomed as encouraging,” said Mr. Sorochan, who has waived his fees to help the veterans. He said he believes the lawyers who are arguing against the case brought by his clients may be out of step with the current position of the Conservative government.
> 
> Mr. O’Toole told a Commons committee this week he thinks the purpose clause in the bill goes further than the NDP motion to acknowledge the obligation that Canada has to its veterans.
> 
> When Mr. Donnelly asked Mr. O’Toole at that committee whether he would instruct the government lawyers to negotiate a settlement, the minister did not offer a direct response. He instead pointed to the improvements to the veterans’ compensation package that are included in his legislation.
> 
> “I sincerely hope that they see Bill C-58 as progress,” replied Mr. O’Toole, “that they see our purpose statement, and our fulfilment of the obligation that they’ve talked about as to be a very positive step.”
> 
> But Mr. Sorochan said the measures taken by the government to improve compensation for modern-day veterans are not sufficient to end the court action. They “are good steps towards resolving difficulties,” he said, “but they don’t go far enough to justify dropping the lawsuit.”



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndps-motion-helps-veterans-suit-against-ottawa-lawyer-says/article24434834/


----------



## Teager

Everything is on hold until May 2016. Could possibly be over.



> Veterans injured in Canada’s modern wars say they’re willing to wait until after the next election to see if a new government of any stripe is willing to improve their benefits and make their class-action lawsuit unnecessary.
> 
> The stand came Monday after B.C. Appeal Court Justice Harvey Groberman rejected a bid by lawyers for veterans and the federal government to scrap a federal appeal of a lower court ruling that rejected the government application to strike down the lawsuit.
> 
> Instead, Justice Groberman suspended the proceedings to May, 2016, expressing concerns about issues in the case not being argued out in court.
> 
> Responding to the ruling, Major Mark Campbell, who lost both legs in a Taliban attack, said he could not see the merit of pressuring the federal government with the federal election looming.
> 
> “With Parliament about to be dissolved, nothing substantive is going to come about anyhow. There aren’t going to be any more substantive bills or substantive changes possible between now and the outcome of the federal election,” the 50-year-old Edmonton resident said in an interview.
> 
> Mr. Campbell was among six named plaintiffs who launched the suit against the federal government, taking issue with reforms to Canadian Forces compensation for members of the armed forces injured before 2006.
> 
> They have been concerned about changes to replace a lifetime disability pension for disabled soldiers with lump-sum payments.
> 
> “I am prepared to roll with the punches,” he said of Monday’s development. “Am I surprised? No. Am I disappointed? Not necessarily. I believe that the right outcome is going to derive from everything that we’re going through right now.”
> 
> Jim Scott, the father of the lead plaintiff among six in the case, said it’s difficult to move forward without knowing which party will be governing Canada after the election.
> 
> “We really have to wait until there’s more clarity in government,” he said in an interview.
> 
> Mr. Scott said he and supporters have been talking to all major national parties. He said he has been briefed on the yet-to-be released Liberal Party platform for veterans, but only on the condition he does not disclose it.
> 
> Asked for comments, the Liberals issued a brief statement from veterans affairs critic Frank Valeriote: “The Conservatives have repeatedly demonstrated where they stand on veterans’ issues – typically in a courtroom fighting against veterans.”
> 
> The official opposition NDP, asked about Monday’s developments, noted in a statement that its policies heading into the fall election include an end to fighting legal battles against veterans, reopening veterans affairs offices closed by the federal Conservative government and an overhaul to the veterans charter that would include addressing such issues as career transition, death benefits and education assistance.
> 
> Mr. Scott said he could not comment on the NDP platform.
> 
> Outside the court in Vancouver, lawyer Don Sorochan, acting for the veterans, said he and counsel for the federal government arrived ready to abandon a federal appeal that had been argued in December.
> 
> Mr. Sorochan said Defence Minister Erin O’Toole, appointed in January, had reached out to see if the issue could be resolved in the public interest, leading to extensive discussions with the government and other political parties.
> 
> He said the parties concluded the best next step would be to take the appeal off the table. With that option now eliminated, he said some of the onus now goes to Canada’s major political parties.
> 
> “I want the political parties to start into an auction of how much they are going to do for veterans,” he said. “We’ll have nice, competitive bidding to see who can outdo each other to do good things for veterans.”
> 
> Federal lawyer Lori Rasmussen also told reporters that the Crown was ready to abandon its appeal, but the court obviously had a “bigger picture” to consider.
> 
> “The upshot of today’s outcome is that it allows the parties to proceed on their chosen path, which is a collaborative effort to resolve these matters to everybody’s satisfaction.”



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/veterans-lawsuit-against-feds-on-hold-until-after-election/article24724714/


----------



## Moe Litia

Remember the last decade when you vote this fall.


----------



## PuckChaser

Moe Litia said:
			
		

> Remember the last decade when you vote this fall.


And then compare it to the decade before and make the right choice. You're going to be sadly disappointed when the Liberals and NDP don't need to use veterans to score points in the media anymore.


----------



## George Wallace

How soon they forget.  Then again, some of them never knew to begin with; such as this latest "Post and Run".  Guess who just made the WATCH LIST got BANNED (AGAIN) for TROLLING the site?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> Everything is on hold until May 2016. *Could possibly be over*.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/veterans-lawsuit-against-feds-on-hold-until-after-election/article24724714/



6 Jul 2015:  _"The federal government has abandoned its high-profile appeal to the Supreme Court on overseas spying by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service ...."_
22 Sept 2015:  _"Manitoba First Nation leaders say they're pleased to hear that a court battle with the federal government over Kapyong Barracks, a hotly contested piece of real estate in Winnipeg, could soon be over.  During a campaign stop in Winnipeg on Tuesday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the government will not appeal the latest decision from the the Federal Court of Appeal, which upheld an earlier ruling that said Ottawa had failed to consult four First Nations about the future development of the former military site ...."_
Good to see _some_ court actions are over ....


----------



## Teager

> The stand came Monday after B.C. Appeal Court Justice Harvey Groberman rejected a bid by lawyers for veterans and the federal government to scrap a federal appeal of a lower court ruling that rejected the government application to strike down the lawsuit.
> 
> Instead, Justice Groberman suspended the proceedings to May, 2016, expressing concerns about issues in the case not being argued out in court.



Does this mean the government could not scrap there appeal even though they wanted too and arguments still need to be made in court?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> Does this mean the government could not scrap there appeal even though they wanted too and arguments still need to be made in court?


I stand to be corrected by any LLB's on the boards, but I believe that if one side or another wanted to withdraw from/walk away from/drop (don't know the exact legal lingo) the litigation, they could.


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 6 Jul 2015:  _"The federal government has abandoned its high-profile appeal to the Supreme Court on overseas spying by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service ...."_
> 22 Sept 2015:  _"Manitoba First Nation leaders say they're pleased to hear that a court battle with the federal government over Kapyong Barracks, a hotly contested piece of real estate in Winnipeg, could soon be over.  During a campaign stop in Winnipeg on Tuesday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the government will not appeal the latest decision from the the Federal Court of Appeal, which upheld an earlier ruling that said Ottawa had failed to consult four First Nations about the future development of the former military site ...."_
> Good to see _some_ court actions are over ....


One more court action shut down, this one by the new government:  _"Today, the Government of Canada announced that it will not pursue its appeal in the case of The Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al.The case involves changes made in 2012 to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) for refugees, refugee claimants and claimants who were denied refugee status ..."_


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 6 Jul 2015:  _"The federal government has abandoned its high-profile appeal to the Supreme Court on overseas spying by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service ...."_
> 22 Sept 2015:  _"Manitoba First Nation leaders say they're pleased to hear that a court battle with the federal government over Kapyong Barracks, a hotly contested piece of real estate in Winnipeg, could soon be over.  During a campaign stop in Winnipeg on Tuesday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the government will not appeal the latest decision from the the Federal Court of Appeal, which upheld an earlier ruling that said Ottawa had failed to consult four First Nations about the future development of the former military site ...."_
> Good to see _some_ court actions are over ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> milnews.ca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more court action shut down, this one by the new government:  _"Today, the Government of Canada announced that it will not pursue its appeal in the case of The Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al.The case involves changes made in 2012 to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) for refugees, refugee claimants and claimants who were denied refugee status ..."_
Click to expand...

MORE litigation thrown out:  _"The Liberal government says it won't fight to preserve Conservative government rule changes that made it impossible for some rejected refugee claimants to pursue appeals.  A Federal Court ruled in July that it was unconstitutional for the Conservatives to strip the right of appeal for refugee applicants from a list of countries the government deemed to be "safe." ..."_
Still nothing on the veterans' class action suit, though ...  :crickets:


----------



## PuckChaser

Nothing on the HEA lawsuit as well. Don't get a better approval rating by helping soldiers out veterans.


----------



## TCM621

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Nothing on the HEA lawsuit as well. Don't get a better approval rating by helping soldiers out veterans.



Anyone else notice that we didn't get an annual Xmas message from the PM (or MND for that matter)? We did get one thanking everyone who helped with the Refugees though.


----------



## PuckChaser

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Anyone else notice that we didn't get an annual Xmas message from the PM (or MND for that matter)? We did get one thanking everyone who helped with the Refugees though.


That was his Christmas message. MND was absent.


----------



## Rifleman62

Mods will move if this is posted in wrong topic.

Update: Nothing concrete, just a "news" release stating intent.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/01/20/injured-veterans-to-get-pay-payment-choice

*Injured veterans to get pay payment choice*

LEE BERTHIAUME, POSTMEDIA NETWORK

FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2016 07:42 PM EST | UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2016 07:50 PM EST


OTTAWA - Canada’s injured ex-soldiers will get to choose lump-sum payments or a lifetime pension when they leave the military, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says.

“We made commitments to our veterans to offer the lump-sum or lifetime-pension option,” Hehr said. “We are putting my department through the paces of coming up with real, viable plans to allow veterans that choice, to allow them to make a clear decision (by) understanding the financial ramifications.”

Many veterans had become upset with the former Conservative government for the decision to close nine Veterans Affairs offices, lay off hundreds of frontline staff, and do away with disability pensions.

“We campaigned on doing better,” said Hehr. “We courted Canadians’ vote on that commitment, and I have an aggressive mandate letter from Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau outlining those responsibilities.”

These include reintroducing the lifetime pensions that were abolished when the Conservatives implemented the New Veterans Charter, which replaced pensions with a lump-sum payment for injuries and career training.

Many modern-day veterans blasted it as unfair, saying the lump sums offered less support than the previous system.

During the election, the Liberals promised to reintroduce lifelong pensions as an option for those injured while in uniform. But they also promised to increase training opportunities and top up the salaries of those who pursue a civilian career.

“We’re going to be implementing those options for men and women who served in the military to go back to school to complete a four-year degree or go to a trade school if they’d like to build their lives, should that be an option they wish to pursue,” he said.

“So we want to put together a package that works for veterans that understand financial-making decisions and how to get veterans a clear choice as to what’s going to be best for them and their families going forward.”

The Liberal platform budgeted $325 million this year, and $1.25 billion over the next four years, in extra spending on veterans’ issues. But that plan was drawn up before the slumping price of oil and the sagging dollar began wreaking havoc on the economy.

Asked whether the government can still afford to move on all its promises, including reintroducing the pensions, Hehr said he stands by its promise to support those who have served in uniform “with care, compassion and respect.”

Hehr said the government has hired about 150 of a planned 400 new employees to make up for the cuts at Veterans Affairs. He did not say when the pensions would be reintroduced.

lberthiaume@postmedia.com


----------



## PuckChaser

We already have that option, Minister Hehr. Its the monetary value of that "lifetime pension" that is the issue. $50k over a lifetime monthly is still peanuts.


----------



## Teager

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We already have that option, Minister Hehr. Its the monetary value of that "lifetime pension" that is the issue. $50k over a lifetime monthly is still peanuts.



It's hard if he's talking about spreading the lump sum out for your life as a pension or if he is saying pension as in under the old system? Or some sort of completely new pension? Also what about those with a lump sum that want a pension? You could be right PuckChaser although I hope not.


----------



## PuckChaser

I would hope they'll restore the lifetime system that we had under the old pension act, but this news release is just a rehash of the minister directive issued months ago. They must have been concerned Minister Hehr was out of the press too long.


----------



## Teager

According to the Ministers FB page he says the Ottawa Sun has jumped the gun on this and there is still a lot of work to be done. I wish media outlets would wait till everything is in place as this is going to frustrate some vets thinking VAC has made changes when they haven't.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> According to the Ministers FB page he says the Ottawa Sun has jumped the gun on this and there is still a lot of work to be done. I wish media outlets would wait till everything is in place as this is going to frustrate some vets thinking VAC has made changes when they haven't.


Appreciate the frustration, but it seems pretty clear to me - from the posted article ...


> ... “We made commitments to our veterans to offer the lump-sum or lifetime-pension option,” Hehr said. “We are putting my department through the paces of coming up with real, viable plans to allow veterans that choice, to allow them to make a clear decision (by) understanding the financial ramifications.” ...


Working on =/= done.


----------



## cowboy628

[


----------



## CountDC

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=8168978

Seems to be moving along.  Bill C-12.


----------



## The Bread Guy

CountDC said:
			
		

> http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=8168978
> 
> Seems to be moving along.  Bill C-12.


First Reading as of 24 March - more on the steps needed for this to become law here or here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> Lump sum
> 
> 27 An amount that is to be paid under any of sections 21 to 24 is to be paid as a lump sum.



I hope the Opposition takes them to task on this one, during discussion of the Bill. However, I'm not holding my breathe. : One of the big things we've been asking is for a return to monthly payments and it looks like the Trudeau Liberals are trying to slide away from it unnoticed.


----------



## ModlrMike

I read the bill top to bottom. Sorry, not impressed.


----------



## PuckChaser

This bill is just the crap announced in the budget. No new changes.


----------



## Occam

recceguy said:
			
		

> I hope the Opposition takes them to task on this one, during discussion of the Bill. However, I'm not holding my breathe. : One of the big things we've been asking is for a return to monthly payments and it looks like the Trudeau Liberals are trying to slide away from it unnoticed.





			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> They have not. Except where they have explicitly stated that something is to happen immediately, the mandate letter to the minister is for the duration of the Liberal term. With a majority government, they have four years and four budgets.
> 
> It would be foolish to expect them to achieve much or most of this mandate in the first budget. "Re-establish life long pensions as an option for our injured veterans" is a project that will take more than the five months they have had. In December the department sought input from a wide array of veterans groups and advocates. They seemed to be listening. They were essentially given the blessing by all these stakeholders to take time and do it right. Note that from the same line item of the mandate letter, a lump some increase (retroactive) WAS already implemented. That was an easy one; low hanging fruit. Likely the increase to Earnings Loss Benefit.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Altogether an unimpressive budget, but not a failure either. They have also explicitly pledged to continue consultation with veterans over the next year. I am in a position to say that they seem to be expanding their stakeholder outreach, but we will see how that manifests in real action.
> 
> I am less interested, with regards to the veterans portfolio, in this budget than I am in the next one. It wil be the coming year that will show us if the Liberals intend to stand by their commitments to veterans.



From what I've read elsewhere, the government was prepared to reinstate it right away; it was the veterans groups who insisted the time be taken to get it done right.


----------



## Teager

> MAY 2, 2016
> Winnipeg Free Press
> Canada
> Put it in writing, Afghan vets tell Liberals as settlement looms in lawsuit
> By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> Posted: 05/2/2016 12:27 PM	| Comments: 0
> 
> Tweet 0  Post 0  Reddit 0  ShareThis 0  Print  Email 0
> OTTAWA - The Trudeau government is drafting a letter of assurance it hopes will end a class-action lawsuit by Afghan veterans angry about a 10-year-old overhaul of their benefits and entitlements.
> 
> The legal challenge, which became a lightning rod under the Conservative government, was put in abeyance over a year ago in the B.C. Supreme Court, where it was filed on behalf of six complainants.
> 
> The legal time-out was intended, at the time, to give the Harper government an opportunity to introduce a series of improvements to the so-called New Veterans Charter, which — among other things — replaced lifetime pensions for serious injuries with lump-sum awards and a patchwork of stipends.
> 
> Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, says those changes — along with new measures introduced in the Liberal budget and the promise of a return to the lifetime pension — may be enough for them to drop the case.
> 
> He says a meeting earlier this month involving the minister, senior Veterans Affairs officials and lawyers for the Department of Justice, brought them close to a settlement, but the ex-soldiers want to see the federal government acknowledge its commitments in writing.
> 
> "We told the minister that we didn't need another Rotary Club meeting where he goes around and shakes hands and says how nice everybody is," Sorochan told The Canadian Press. "We wanted to get a firm commitment from them about what their intentions are to implement the (minister's) mandate letter."
> 
> After being sworn in last November, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr was ordered, in writing, by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to implement the Liberals' campaign promises and Sorochan says the measures outlined in the mandate letter satisfy the grievances of his clients.
> 
> The Liberal budget poured $5.6 billion into veterans programs over six years, but it did not restore lifetime pensions.
> 
> Since there are thousands of veterans who come under the umbrella of the new system, Sorochan says it's only natural that the government is trying to figure out how to straighten out the system in a way that's fair to everybody.
> 
> "My guys are quite happy with the way it is going," Sorochan said, referring to both the regulatory changes and the amount of consultation federal officials have done with the ex-soldiers.
> 
> Indeed, Trudeau's commitment to wounded soldiers was on full display Monday in Toronto as he joined Prince Harry for events marking the countdown to the 2017 Invictus Games.
> 
> He underlined the government's recent commitments
> 
> "Our soldiers deserve the greatest attention and much compassion from their nation," Trudeau said. "They embody the best of the Canadian identity and have won our respect and our gratitude forever."
> 
> Aside from embarrassing Conservatives among their core political constituency, the way federal lawyers defended the lawsuit three years ago caused enormous political damage.
> 
> Their statement of defence made clear that the federal government believed it had no special obligation to soldiers and that promises of care for the wounded, dating back to the First World War, were political statements not binding on present or future governments.
> 
> Sorochan says the language has since been modified, but he believes the debate strikes at the heart of the Constitution in the sense that it would be impossible for a nation to raise a citizen's army during war — or even a peacetime volunteer force — without some kind of assurance that the wounded and the families of the fallen would receive special attention.



http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/put-it-in-writing-afghan-vets-tell-liberals-as-settlement-looms-in-lawsuit-377832201.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The Trudeau government is drafting a letter of assurance it hopes will end a class-action lawsuit by Afghan veterans angry about a 10-year-old overhaul of their benefits and entitlements ...


op:


----------



## brihard

Occam said:
			
		

> From what I've read elsewhere, the government was prepared to reinstate it right away; it was the veterans groups who insisted the time be taken to get it done right.



Yup. A total reversion from NVC back to the Pension Act was not being asked for, and woul dhave done a lot of harm in scrapping good rehabilitative programs. What is being asked for by vts groups is a mergine of the two, so there can be a life long pension option of equitable value for those who need that, but also retaining the rehabilitative options that help get people up and on their feet.


----------



## Teager

> Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr has been non-committal on pensions for injured soldiers, group argues
> 
> A legal truce between the federal government and wounded and injured soldiers over the New Veterans Charter is in danger of falling part, according to a letter sent to Liberals MPs by a lawyer representing the veterans.
> 
> The peace agreement of sorts reached by the previous Harper government and the six Afghan war veterans who initiated a class-action law suit over pensions and other benefits is set to expire on May 15, 2016.
> 
> The agreement, formally called an "abeyance agreement," put litigation on hold while the two sides tried to reach an out-of-court settlement. That agreement continued after the election of the Liberal government last October.
> 
> But in the letter obtained by CBC News, it now appears that justice department lawyers are threatening to return the case to court if the veterans do not drop their litigation entirely and accept an undisclosed settlement proposed by the federal government.
> 
> According to the letter, justice department lawyers said that they would attempt to shut down the lawsuit by reviving some of the arguments they initially used during the Harper government era to block the case.
> 
> The lawyers argue that Canada does not have a social contract or covenant with veterans, and that a "scheme providing benefits cannot be said to amount to a deprivation merely because claimant views the benefits as insufficient."
> 
> The Harper government spent over $700,000 fighting this class-action lawsuit in court.
> 
> The plaintiffs have argued in court that the lump-sum payment wounded veterans receive under the new charter — as opposed to the lifetime pension that was previously offered to veterans before 2006 — is inadequate compensation, as they receive less money over the course of a lifetime.
> 
> They've also argued that it violates their rights — the right to life, liberty and security of the person — under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
> 
> Proposed settlement rejected by justice lawyers
> 
> The letter, penned by Donald Sorochan, the lawyer representing the class-action lawsuit plaintiffs pro bono, is written to Liberal MPs and former Liberal candidates who were actively involved with the veterans file during the last election campaign.
> 
> "At a recent Ottawa meeting on April 11, 2016, we and our clients met with justice counsel, the minister and ministry officials," Sorochan writes.
> 
> "We had expected that there would be a discussion with ministry officials … instead of discussion occurring, justice counsel requested us to put a proposal in writing and stated that if the matter was not resolved by our clients dropping the litigation, the Court of Appeal would be invited by the Crown to render its decision."
> 
> Sorochan writes that his clients did draft a proposed settlement in writing, but it was rejected by the government on May 9, 2016.
> 
> "Our proposal was rejected, but I cannot tell you more than that because of confidentiality constraints insisted upon by the government," the lawyer tells Liberals MPs.
> 
> The plaintiffs proposed that the government confirm its commitment to "recognizing the moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation between the people and the government of Canada to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Armed Forces who have been injured," among other demands.
> 
> The Department of Veterans Affairs said Wednesday that it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter as it is before the courts, but said that it will continue its work to "restore critical access to services and support for financial independence."
> 
> Frustration with dearth of details
> 
> Sorochan said that the Liberal government had campaigned on restoring veterans benefits, but Veterans Minister Kent Hehr has so far been frustratingly non-committal as to the schedule and timing of some of his top priorities, namely implementing lifelong pensions for wounded veterans and improving survivor benefits.
> 
> The 2016 budget did allocate more than $4.6 billion over three years to boost support for veterans, namely reopening services offices, increasing the disability award and boosting the earnings loss benefit for injured veterans and expanding access to the permanent impairment allowance — but it was silent on pensions, the biggest sticking point.
> 
> The Liberal platform in the last election explicitly promised to restore that benefit. "We will re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans, and increase the value of the disability award," the platform reads.
> 
> Sorochan said that his clients cannot be expected to drop their lawsuit against the government while they remain in the dark about some of their most pressing concerns.
> 
> "Many veterans were disappointed to see what was not included in the 2016 budget, including the promised lifetime pensions which campaign materials suggested would be introduced in the 2016 fiscal year," Sorochan writes to Liberal MPs.
> 
> "While the direction from the government to the minister and the department is very encouraging, as much clarity as possible is sought as to … what reforms are likely to be reflected in the 2017 budget," Sorochan writes. "It is necessary to know these details in order to assess the potential for positive enhancements in the treatment of the representative plaintiffs, class members and veterans generally.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-new-veterans-charter-1.3575845


----------



## cowboy628

Well, now what ABC crowd. Couldn't see the trees through the forest.


----------



## Occam

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> Well, now what ABC crowd. Couldn't see the trees through the forest.



What does ABC have to do with it?  The Equitas lawsuit is completely independent of the government's plans.  It would be unwise to throw away your ace in the hole until you have it in writing that the lifetime disability pension will be restored.


----------



## cowboy628

I used the term ABC term because all that crowd was adamant that the libs were different and would go back to pension plan ie monthly disability pensions. I find it funny, kind of I told you so.


----------



## Occam

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> I used the term ABC term because all that crowd was adamant that the libs were different and would go back to pension plan ie monthly disability pensions. I find it funny, kind of I told you so.



See post #229 in this thread.


----------



## RobA

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> I used the term ABC term because all that crowd was adamant that the libs were different and would go back to pension plan ie monthly disability pensions. I find it funny, kind of I told you so.



Hm. Harper had 10 years to fix this, which he did nothing of the sort.

Trudeau has had six months.  And he's STILL done more then Harper did during his ten years.

The ABC crowd was absolutely correct, and if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't even be TALKING about a return to pensions. We certainly wouldn't have the benefits Trudeau has already given us, re: ELB, PIA, and the DA.

You should be thanking the ABC crowd.


----------



## George Wallace

RobA said:
			
		

> .......... We certainly wouldn't have the benefits Trudeau has already given us, re: ELB, PIA, and the DA.



I must have missed something.


----------



## PuckChaser

You mean ELB, PIA and DA which were Tory announcements? Gotcha, thanks ABC. While they're fixing VAC maybe the ABC clowns can figure out how to wear a beret better than a BMQ candidate.


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You mean ELB, PIA and DA which were Tory announcements? Gotcha, thanks ABC.



I think he meant the improvements to those benefits.



> While they're fixing VAC maybe the ABC clowns can figure out how to wear a beret better than a BMQ candidate.



Yeah, because _that_ matters in the grand scheme of taking the government to task over inaction on the veterans file.


----------



## George Wallace

Yet, we are still seeing the same ole, same ole:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-new-veterans-charter-1.3575845


----------



## PuckChaser

From the article linked above:



> But according to the letter obtained by CBC News, justice department lawyers are threatening to return the case to court if the veterans do not drop their litigation entirely and accept an undisclosed settlement proposed by the federal government.
> 
> The veterans' lawyer says in the letter that justice department lawyers are ready to shut down the lawsuit by reviving some of the arguments they initially used during the Harper government era to block the case.
> 
> The letter tells Liberal MPs that the government lawyers are arguing Canada does not have a social contract or covenant with veterans, and that a "scheme providing benefits cannot be said to amount to a deprivation merely because claimant views the benefits as insufficient."



So much for working "with" veterans. Where's the Liberal cheerleaders on this? The same Harper-era draconian tactics, but since its Trudeau do they get a free pass? The problem is when you campaign on being completely different from the old guys, you get a very small amount of latitude to do that before you become just like those old guys. The Liberals have 2 more budgets to fix the VAC issues. If they try to do anything on the 4th and final one, its a purely political move designed to save face and not lose support.


----------



## ueo

And anything else was expected?


----------



## CountDC

all part of the script.

Get sabres rattling and once enough attention is back on the subject in the press golden boy steps into the light for his photo op and saves the day.    Of course the blame will be that the lawyers were following a policy issued to them by the prior government and had nothing to do with the current one.  The new policy issued was lost in the mail.


----------



## gryphonv

My biggest question with this, where is that 'free education' part for all members that served that they campaigned on? I remember the press conference, but I have seen nothing announced with it.


----------



## ModlrMike

RobA said:
			
		

> Hm. Harper had 10 years to fix this, which he did nothing of the sort.
> 
> Trudeau has had six months.  And he's STILL done more then Harper did during his ten years.



To be fair, we were in a "shootin' war" during a good portion of that time, and changing the rules mid-way would have been worse than letting things stand.


----------



## PuckChaser

gryphonv said:
			
		

> My biggest question with this, where is that 'free education' part for all members that served that they campaigned on? I remember the press conference, but I have seen nothing announced with it.



White noise. You'd be praying for a unicorn if you're thinking we're getting a GI Bill.


----------



## RobA

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I must have missed something.



Missed the budget announcement? I understand many don't trust the government, but I'm not going to believe that they would announce such specific benefits and then take it off the table.

The Trudeau goverent has been working in good faith. Like, for f's sake, he's been PM for 6 months.

He was willing to reinstate pensions THIS year, but the vets said wait, they wanted to do it right and not rush it. A wise choice I think. But it shows to me that the gov in Canada is acting in good faith.


----------



## RobA

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You mean ELB, PIA and DA which were Tory announcements? Gotcha, thanks ABC. While they're fixing VAC maybe the ABC clowns can figure out how to wear a beret better than a BMQ candidate.



No, I mean the improvements to those things which were announced in March.

Harper introducing those things via the NVC is nothing to brag about. Frankly, Harper's passing of it is a bug part of the reason why ABC exists. Harper was a PoS


----------



## PuckChaser

So Trudeau gets credit for adding 15% to something Harper created that went from 0% to 75% after the Liberals signed off on NVC that was 0%? Good call.


----------



## Teager

RobA said:
			
		

> Missed the budget announcement? I understand many don't trust the government, but I'm not going to believe that they would announce such specific benefits and then take it off the table.
> 
> The Trudeau goverent has been working in good faith. Like, for f's sake, he's been PM for 6 months.
> 
> He was willing to reinstate pensions THIS year, but the vets said wait, they wanted to do it right and not rush it. A wise choice I think. But it shows to me that the gov in Canada is acting in good faith.



I'm not sure about the pensions. Clearly the articles above state a settlement was drawn up for the Equitas group but it's not what they want. When the Equitas group handed them what they wanted the government said no. Hence the shaky ground. Mark Campbell also stated the last meeting he had with the Minister in regards to this issue did not go so well.

All I can say is the Liberals will have a lot of pressure on them for at least the next 2 years with the Invictus Games, 100th Anniversay of Vimy and Canada's 150th. This will keep an eye focused on the CAF and its Veterans. 

The deadline to come to an agreement is May 15. So maybe next week we will see what the next move is going to be.


----------



## kratz

Small details like the "promise" for medical release to  cover up to 5 years of education. 
Waiting....


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The problem is when you campaign on being completely different from the old guys, you get a very small amount of latitude to do that before you become just like those old guys. The Liberals have 2 more budgets to fix the VAC issues. If they try to do anything on the 4th and final one, its a purely political move designed to save face and not lose support.


 :nod:


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So Trudeau gets credit for adding 15% to something Harper created that went from 0% to 75% after the Liberals signed off on NVC that was 0%? Good call.



Say what?

Trudeau gets credit for levelling out the playing field for all NVC lump sum recipients to a 100% = $360,000 lump sum award through a retroactive top-up payment.  This was an important step to ensuring equity for all NVC lump sum recipients prior to advancing on the return to having the option of a life-long pension scheme.  Had the top-up not been done, you would have had some NVC recipients who received LSA based on $250K in 2006, $298,587 (in 2013), and $310,378.59 in 2016 (I'm sure I missed some increases, but you get the point).  Now everyone will be in receipt of a LSA based on $360K regardless of when they received an award.  Level the playing ground, and then implement a change to a scheme permitting disability pensions or disability awards, at the choice of the recipient.  It makes perfect sense.


----------



## George Wallace

Occam said:
			
		

> Trudeau gets credit for levelling out the playing field for all NVC lump sum recipients to a 100% = $360,000 lump sum award through a retroactive top-up payment.  This was an important step to ensuring equity for all NVC lump sum recipients prior to advancing on the return to having the option of a life-long pension scheme.  Had the top-up not been done, you would have had some NVC recipients who received LSA based on $250K in 2006, $298,587 (in 2013), and $310,378.59 in 2016 (I'm sure I missed some increases, but you get the point).  Now everyone will be in receipt of a LSA based on $360K regardless of when they received an award.  Level the playing ground, and then implement a change to a scheme permitting disability pensions or disability awards, at the choice of the recipient.  It makes perfect sense.



So if I read this right:

1. Recipients received LSA based on $250K in 2006;
2. Recipients received LSA based on $298,587 in 2013; and
3. Recipients received LSA based on $310,378.59 in 2016.

All of this seems to have been indexed to match rises in Cost of Living, Inflation, etc.

Now you seem to be saying that LSA is to be capped based on $360K with NO indexing to match inflation, etc.

Is that correct?

Does that not leave future recipients of LSA at a level much lower than those at the 2006 level after inflation and all factors are added up?  Is that really an improvement?

Sorry if my interpretation of this is wrong.


----------



## Occam

Well, you're correct in stating that between 2006 and present, there have been periodic increases to the LSA.  None of those increases have been retroactive, so the person who got theirs in 2006 got less than someone who got a more recent award.  The top-up will equalize that so that all LSA recipients will be on a level playing field effective 1 April 2017.  That sets the stage for an introduction to a choice between reverting to a life-long disability pension, or walking away with what you've received as a lump sum award at the 1 April 2017 rate.  As far as I know, the discussions are still ongoing to determine how those who opt to return to a disability pension will be dealt with (likely by withholding payments until they're "caught up"), as well as what an equitable lump sum award will be.  Given the current disparity between what a Pension Act recipient gets, and a LSA recipient gets is pretty large, the LSA would almost certainly need to be increased.  Most veterans realize that if you have an option of taking a LSA payment, that it needs to be somewhat less than a disability pension would be based on average life expectancy, age at date of award, etc.


----------



## George Wallace

I see this as a lose lose situation for those further down the road who may select LSA.

As stated:

1. Recipients received LSA based on $250K in 2006 dollars;
2. Recipients received LSA based on $298,587 in 2013 (to equal 2006 dollar amounts); and
3. Recipients received LSA based on $310,378.59 in 2016 (to equal 2006 dollar amounts).

And now LSA will be at $360K which will be worth less than 2006 dollar amounts when inflation is factored in, as the years pass.

If that $360K is to be indexed as you alluded to, then there really has been no change.


----------



## RobA

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So Trudeau gets credit for adding 15% to something Harper created that went from 0% to 75% after the Liberals signed off on NVC that was 0%? Good call.



No. Harper gets ZERO credit l because the PIA, ELB and the DA are all garbage compared to what they replaced.

Once that happened, however, credit is given where shitty programs are made slightl less shitty.

Harper didn't make any of those less shitty. His only  improvement was a bullshit "critical injury benefit" that nobody f'n qualifies for. I was blown up in a LAV, medievac'd to Role 3 in a Blackhawk, and stayed there for 2 weeks.

And yet, I didn't qualify for it.

Trudeau has to play the cards he's dealt. He came in, offered to reinstate pensions, and was told vets wanted to wait. So instead of just saying "OK" he said "ok, and in the meantime, here's an improvements to the major programs".

The Justice dept wrangling is just politics. Lawyers negotiating. That's what they do. This shit goes on ALL the time, it's just that the Equitas guys decided to leak the negotiations as a way to put political pressure of the Libs, a wise strategy.

Trudeau hasn't been perfect. But he's been far better in 6 months for vets then Harper was in 10 years.


----------



## RobA

Occam said:
			
		

> Say what?
> 
> Trudeau gets credit for levelling out the playing field for all NVC lump sum recipients to a 100% = $360,000 lump sum award through a retroactive top-up payment.  This was an important step to ensuring equity for all NVC lump sum recipients prior to advancing on the return to having the option of a life-long pension scheme.  Had the top-up not been done, you would have had some NVC recipients who received LSA based on $250K in 2006, $298,587 (in 2013), and $310,378.59 in 2016 (I'm sure I missed some increases, but you get the point).  Now everyone will be in receipt of a LSA based on $360K regardless of when they received an award.  Level the playing ground, and then implement a change to a scheme permitting disability pensions or disability awards, at the choice of the recipient.  It makes perfect sense.



I really don't think that's the case. I don't think the top will include COLA increases.

The link in the other thread put out by VAC gives an example of someone at 25% getting around $11,000. If COLA  was included, it would be more.

My guess is they didn't mention the year because it's irrelevant. IOW, all vets pensioned at 100% get the same top up, regardless of year they got the DA. All vets pensioned at 95% Vet the same, etc.

The maximum top up, IMO, is $50,000, which would be given to vets @ 100%. You can extrapolate down from there.


----------



## PuckChaser

RobA said:
			
		

> No. Harper gets ZERO credit l because the PIA, ELB and the DA are all garbage compared to what they replaced.



How do you define adding 15% to garbage? Slightly better garbage? Congratulations, you've just successfully argued that Trudeau has done nothing other than adding Febreeze to garbage.

Come talk to me when he's actually done something of substance. Your Liberal saviours voted for NVC, and voted against the budgets that included an increase in services (PIA and ELB).


----------



## Occam

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see this as a lose lose situation for those further down the road who may select LSA.
> 
> As stated:
> 
> 1. Recipients received LSA based on $250K in 2006 dollars;
> 2. Recipients received LSA based on $298,587 in 2013 (to equal 2006 dollar amounts); and
> 3. Recipients received LSA based on $310,378.59 in 2016 (to equal 2006 dollar amounts).
> 
> And now LSA will be at $360K which will be worth less than 2006 dollar amounts when inflation is factored in, as the years pass.
> 
> If that $360K is to be indexed as you alluded to, then there really has been no change.



I'm not seeing your line of thought.

LSA is meant to avoid indexing issues.  Yes, the amount has increased over the years to address inflation, etc., but those who received 2006 awards have (theoretically) had their LSA "indexed" through interest earned (assuming they banked it).  Bringing everyone to the same point (as though they had all been awarded their LSA effective 1 April 2017) levels the playing field, at which point you can introduce options for what they want to do from there.  Either revert to a monthly pension scheme in some fashion, or walk away from the table with some form of updated LSA that is fairer in comparison to what one receives over a lifetime of pension payments - rather than the huge gap you see now.  Neither of those schemes have been ironed out yet - but assuming you have a "decide by" date to elect pension/LSA that's not too far in the future, the field will remain level for everyone, and you live with the choice you made.


----------



## Occam

RobA said:
			
		

> I really don't think that's the case. I don't think the top will include COLA increases.
> 
> The link in the other thread put out by VAC gives an example of someone at 25% getting around $11,000. If COLA  was included, it would be more.
> 
> My guess is they didn't mention the year because it's irrelevant. IOW, all vets pensioned at 100% get the same top up, regardless of year they got the DA. All vets pensioned at 95% Vet the same, etc.
> 
> The maximum top up, IMO, is $50,000, which would be given to vets @ 100%. You can extrapolate down from there.



The year it was awarded to them matters.  The retro award will be the delta between X% of $360K, less the award they got (which is X% of what the maximum was in the year it was awarded), where X is the disability rating.  There will be a bigger delta for those recipients who got earlier awards.  Section 100 (1) of the budget bill at http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8206355 shows the math.

The largest top up will be to someone awarded $250K in 2006.  They will receive a $110K top up payment.


----------



## Teager

Occam are you able to post the math they use from that link you posted? I can't seem to find it or possibly just missed it by not understanding it. I've seen so many different calculations they may use to calculate the top up from other guys that I don't know what's what anymore.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... Your Liberal saviours voted for NVC As did every Tory in a Tory government, with no return to pensions even during a Tory majority government, and voted against the budgets that included no commitments to return to pre-NVC pensions, but an increase in services (PIA and ELB)  .


The REST of the story in green - all that said, I'm going to repeat something you said earlier as well:


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Liberals have 2 more budgets to fix the VAC issues. If they try to do anything on the 4th and final one, its a purely political move designed to save face and not lose support.


The Tories had nine budgets to fix it - let's see if the Liberals can do better than that.


----------



## RobA

Occam, I hope youre right, but I don't think so.  I've been trying to tease apart the legalese in the bill for a month now, and I can't come up with anything that suggests they'll add COLA in the top up.

From the bill (emphasis mine):



> 21 (1) The Minister must pay to a member or a veteran who received, in whole or in part, a disability award under section 45, 47 or 48 of the Act before April 1, 2017, and who is alive on April 1, 2017, an amount determined in accordance with the formula
> A − B
> where
> 
> A
> is the amount set out in column 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act, as that Schedule read on April 1, 2017, that corresponds to the member’s or veteran’s extent of disability, as set out in column 2, for which the disability award was received, *reduced* — for every calendar year from2016 until the year in which the disability award was received — by a percentage calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the percentages by which the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to the Act are periodically adjusted; and
> 
> B
> is the amount of the disability award that was payable to the member or the veteran under subsection 52(1) of the Act.



the word "reduced" means they take the number corresponing to your % and REDUCE it according to how long ago you got your DA. So yes, you're right in the sense that the year DOES matter. But it matters only insofar as the longer you got it, the more they reduce from the original number. And the "amount reduced by" sounds exactly like COLA. 

So for someone at 100%, they'll take the new 100% number - $360,000 - and reduce it by the COLA since they got it. They'll end up with a new number. Let's say that number comes to $315,000 (obviously, this will depend on the year which they got it). So now they take $310,000 and subtract what they've ALREADY been paid. Let's say it's $260,000. The balance - $50,000 -  is what the top up will be. At least that's how it reads to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

How about we quit playing the blame game and the partisan politics and just stick to the facts of the new adjustments. People interested in what we're supposed to get have enough to think about without having to listen to who did what. I don't care what Trudeau, Harper, Martin did. I want to know where we're going cause I know where I've already been and you can't change the past. Let's look forward to the future and leave the personalities/ petty politics out of it.

'Nuff said. No more warnings.

---Staff---


----------



## brihard

recceguy said:
			
		

> How about we quit playing the blame game and the partisan politics and just stick to the facts of the new adjustments. People interested in what we're supposed to get have enough to think about without having to listen to who did what. I don't care what Trudeau, Harper, Martin did. I want to know where we're going cause I know where I've already been and you can't change the past. Let's look forward to the future and leave the personalities/ petty politics out of it.
> 
> 'Nuff said. No more warnings.
> 
> ---Staff---



I see nothing in the page code of conduct that prohibits civil discussion of the political history of certain public policy matters, such as veterans. Veterans benefits were a huge political hot potato coming into the election. The issue has been and remains heavily politicized by both parties. We talk politics on this site constantly where it impacts on us.

I see no problem here with people discussing the 'blame game' of poor veterans policy beyond you personally not liking it. If members are going to discuss this stuff without violating page rules, I for one would like to see something more solid as justification for staff action than 'last warning' resting on essentially 'because I said so'. We are all grown ups here. If you don't like the discussion and rules aren't being broken, then attempt to sway it by _influence_, or just stay out of it.

Just as a bit of an eyebrow raiser from within this very thread: 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I hope the Opposition takes them to task on this one, during discussion of the Bill. However, I'm not holding my breathe. : One of the big things we've been asking is for a return to monthly payments and it looks like the Trudeau Liberals are trying to slide away from it unnoticed.



I trust we're done here and folks can carry on as they were?

---I have a Staff sig line too--


----------



## Occam

RobA, in retrospect I think you're correct.  I think that "reduced — for every calendar year from 2016 until the year in which the disability award was received — by a percentage calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the percentages by which the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to the Act are periodically adjusted" phrase refers to section 63 of the _Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Regulations_.

In other words, it looks like they'll reduce the $360K by the CPI for every year going backward until they reach the year you were originally given the LSA, and then pay the difference between that and what you already got.  Looking at the CPI tables, I think that would be 17.6% if you got your LSA in 2006.  Damn, that's a significant dent in the top-up.


----------



## RobA

Occam, yeah, I've been reading it through it and running some numbers. It looks like COLA won't be included. I'll give you an example using my own situation, along with the COLA tables that VAC uses:

2007 -2.2917%
2008 -2%
2009 -2.5%
2010 -3.25949%
2011 -3.346776%
2012 -2.8%
2013 -1.8%
2014 -0.9%
2015 -1.8%
2016 -1.2%

I got $260,212 in 2008, at 100%.

So if you take that number, and add all the COLA increases starting from 2009 until the present day, you end up with just over $310,000, which is of course the amount of 100% award today. The math holds up no matter which year you use. If you take, for example, someone who got 100% in 2010, and add in each years COLA increase, you end up at around $310,000. 

Basically, according to VAC, the two numbers are equal. I.e. $260,000 in 2008 is the exact same as $310,000 in 2016, in terms of purchasing power. Which is another reason why I don't think we'll get COLA. Beause in the eyes of VAC, everyones been paid the same. Frankly, if they DO give us COLA, the more recent guys would have a valid grievance. $260,000 in 2008 plus $100,000 in 2017 is significantly more valuable then $310,000 plus $60,000 in 2017, even though both numbers total $360,000

I think the calculation will go like this (Ill use my situation, with my specific numbers in red):

"A
is the amount set out in column 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act, as that Schedule read on April 1, 2017, (100% on the new tables, i.e. $360,000) that corresponds to the member’s or veteran’s extent of disability, as set out in column 2, for which the disability award was received, reduced — for every calendar year from2016 until the year in which the disability award was received — by a percentage calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the percentages (this "reduction number" is $50,934, taking my existing DA of $260,000 and subtracting the difference between being paid out in 2016 and 2008) by which the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to the Act are periodically adjusted; and"

So in my case, A equals $309,066. B equals my existing payout of $260,212, which means my top up will be $48,854. A - B = $48,854/

If you run this method for every year under the assumption of 100%, you get pretty much the same number:

2009 award @ 100% (B): $266,717 (2008 award*2.5%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $316,468 ($360,000-$49,751)
Top up (A-B): $49,751

2010 award @ 100% (B): $275,385 (2009 award*3.25%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $327,395 ($360,000-$33,605)
Top up (A-B): $51,010

2011 award @ 100% (B): $286,726 (2010 award*3.34%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $335,629 ($360,000-$24,371)
Top up (A-B): $48,903

2012 award @ 100% (B): $294,754 (2011 award*2.8%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $343,200 ($360,000-$16,800)
Top up (A-B): $48,446

2013 award @ 100% (B): $300,059 (2012 award*1.8%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $348,298 ($360,000-$11,702)
Top up (A-B): $48,239

If you keep going until 2016, you'll get the same thing: no matter what year you got paid out, everyone is more or less getting the same amount as everyone else with the same %, give or take a half a percentage point or so, depending on your specific circumstances. All 100%'ers will get roughly the same. All 90%'ers the same, etc.

That's why the example from VAC didn't give the year, because it doesn't really matter. The year matters in the sense that the calculations will be different. The MATH underneath your final number will be different from that of someone else. But effectively, it all ends up at the same place.

And yeah, that is a pretty big dent. Better then nothing, of course, but I was pensioned at age 25 nine years ago. If I was under the pension syste, I likely would have ALREADY been paid around $270,000 or so, and still have (god willing) another 50 years or so. The guy with the exact same injury as me only two years sooner got a pension worth probably around $1-$2 million. It's a little tough to swallow. I mean, yeah its better then nothing. But the discrepancy between being hurt in 2005 and being hurt in 2007 is astronomical.  I'm finding it a little tough to be overjoyed by the table scraps when the guy beside me gets a lifetime buffet. I don't begrudge any vet that got the pension, of course. But man....what the frig where they thinking when this got passed? Where the hell was the Legion? Where the hell was anyone?


----------



## Occam

That is some seriously sound math you have going on there.  ;D

My apologies for misinterpreting the legislation; the reduction threw me and I must've mentally ignored it, and it definitely makes a difference.

You're a textbook example of what Equitas is all about.  For what's supposed to be pain & suffering compensation that should've remained constant regardless of other factors, people like you got royally screwed by the NVC.  I have conditions under both schemes, and while the disability ratings for each are not that far apart, the difference between them should I live another 30-odd years to the average male life expectancy is night and day.  I'm still optimistic that the government hasn't pulled a fast one on us and is truly sincere about returning to a lifelong disability pension for all, and the only thing holding them back is making doubly sure that we return to one class of veteran.


----------



## George Wallace

So using RobA's math, Vets are now worse off and the fight must go on?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Brihard said:
			
		

> I see nothing in the page code of conduct that prohibits civil discussion of the political history of certain public policy matters, such as veterans. Veterans benefits were a huge political hot potato coming into the election. The issue has been and remains heavily politicized by both parties. We talk politics on this site constantly where it impacts on us.
> 
> I see no problem here with people discussing the 'blame game' of poor veterans policy beyond you personally not liking it. If members are going to discuss this stuff without violating page rules, I for one would like to see something more solid as justification for staff action than 'last warning' resting on essentially 'because I said so'. We are all grown ups here. If you don't like the discussion and rules aren't being broken, then attempt to sway it by _influence_, or just stay out of it.
> 
> Just as a bit of an eyebrow raiser from within this very thread:
> 
> I trust we're done here and folks can carry on as they were?
> 
> ---I have a Staff sig line too--



Sorry, I think you missed the point. The whole Harper's/ Trudeau's fault stuff adds SFA to the conversation. That's the past. Let's focus on what is coming and how to deal with it.

No matter whose fault it is.

Rather than bury the meaning of the thread amongst accusations on which guy did better, let's stay with what we need, what is offered and how we are going to deal with it.

Instead of all the Harper/ Trudeau is trying to fuck us stuff.

Does that make things clearer to you?


----------



## Occam

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So using RobA's math, Vets are now worse off and the fight must go on?



Sure, if you call getting a $50K top-up LSA cheque if you're 100% disabled (and proportionately less if you're disabled to a lesser degree) "worse off".

The end effect is the same - all the NVC veterans get a top-up to the 2017 rate.  Now they can move forward on the NVC vets rejoining the group of lifetime disability pension vets, once the details of that are sorted out.  Scary as it is, I can see their logic as they move forward, and it seems (to me, at least) they're exercising due diligence in not improving benefits to one group to the detriment of another.


----------



## TCM621

Just to play Devils advocate for a minute,  Rob. If you had invested that 260k at a conservative 4 percent it would be worth 1.85 Mil in 50 years.  So you received an equivalent amount of money,  you just got it up front. 

I don't agree with the idea that giving a 25 year old 260k and saying live on this for life being a good idea but I can get logic behind the payout. It looked at it from a strict mathematical point of view and it looked good. 

I don't think even giving the option of up front cash is a good idea. Giving some kid whose life just got ruined a quarter of a million dollars is a good way to end up with a poor, addicted veteran a few years down the road. Then you have to help him anyway or look like you are ignoring injured vets. For small sums it makes sense. I would rather take a one time payout for a small ankle injury but once you start getting into payments of more than a couple hundred a month, just force a pension on them.


----------



## Occam

It bears repeating that the Disability Pension and Disability Award are intended to compensate for the non-economic impact (pain and suffering) of an injury or illness.  It's not meant to "live on", since if one is disabled, one is expected to seek gainful employment, or if unable to work, there are other income replacement benefits meant to address that.

I see a need for both options (pension and LSA).  If you're 70 years old and have just recently been diagnosed with asbestosis caused by asbestos exposure during Naval service, are you really interested in a life-long monthly pension?

Loath as I am to use this analogy again, it's like the Cash for Life lotto.  You can choose either $2000/week for life, or $1.35 million lump sum payment.  If you're happy with only getting 13 years worth of payments (or don't expect to live 13 years), the lump sum is for you.  Otherwise, you are much, much further ahead selecting the weekly (monthly) payments for life.


----------



## PuckChaser

Our Liberal leopards have shown their spots, support for veterans only enough to get your votes:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kent-hehr-veterans-court-benefits-1.3586013 (highlights are mine)



> Ottawa's legal manoeuvre on veterans benefits called 'a betrayal'
> Lawyer for injured Afghan veterans says court action turns 'Liberal election campaign into a lie'
> 
> By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: May 17, 2016 5:02 PM ET Last Updated: May 17, 2016 5:12 PM ET
> 
> The federal government is taking veterans back to court to try to block certain benefits for injured and wounded soldiers, despite a Liberal campaign promise to better support them after an era of Conservative cuts.
> 
> "It's a betrayal," said Donald Sorochan, the lawyer representing the six Afghan war veterans who initiated a class-action lawsuit over pensions and other benefits.
> 
> "They have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie. I sat at tables [during the campaign] with some of the people who are now in cabinet. Those ministers have been turned into liars by the Department of Justice," he said Tuesday, noting the election platform explicitly promised that no veteran would have to "fight the government" for the support and compensation they have earned.
> 
> A peace agreement of sorts reached by the previous Harper government and the veterans, the plaintiffs, expired Sunday. The two sides failed to reach an out-of-court settlement, and now government lawyers have informed the B.C. Court of Appeals that they will pick up the lawsuit where it left off.
> 
> The plaintiffs have argued in court that the government has a sacred obligation to its injured soldiers and that the lump-sum payment wounded veterans receive under the New Veterans Charter — as opposed to the pension that was previously offered to veterans before 2006 — is inadequate compensation, as they receive less money over the course of a lifetime.
> 
> They've also argued that it violates their rights — the right to life, liberty and security of the person — under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
> 
> "The social covenant is this promise that our country, Canada, has promised service people they will be protected when they get maimed and their families will be looked after if they are killed," Sorochan said.
> 
> Government lawyers outraged veterans by asserting that the federal government has no extraordinary obligation to those who have fought for the country, and therefore the litigation has no merit.
> 
> The justice department lawyers tried to block the case during the Harper era by arguing that Canada does not have a social covenant with veterans, and that a "scheme providing benefits cannot be said to amount to a deprivation merely because claimant views the benefits as insufficient." They also said that the plaintiffs "seek to advance a pure economic interest."
> 
> Erin O'Toole, who was brought on by Harper to replace Julian Fantino on the veterans file, ultimately repudiated those arguments and tried to put an end to a political headache that had been dogging the Tories for months.
> 
> Moreover, all parties voted unanimously in favour of a motion introduced by NDP MP Fin Donnelly last May, which recognized a "stand-alone covenant of moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people … and members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or died as a result of military service."
> 
> *O'Toole also removed the lead government lawyer, Paul Vickery, from the case and replaced him with Joel Watson, a litigator from the private sector and himself a former veteran.
> 
> But Sorochan told CBC News that the government lawyers have told him they will now revive the argument that the government does not have a sacred obligation to veterans — to try to kill the class-action lawsuit once and for all.
> 
> The Liberal government has also put Vickery back on the case.*


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Our Liberal leopards have shown their spots, support for veterans only enough to get your votes:


Or if it doesn't cost toooooooooooo much ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Or you could cynically say that as the ABC crowd have been gulled and served their purpose, they can now be disposed of like a used Kleenex.  Business as usual for the Liberals...


----------



## RobA

It sounds like these DOJ lawyers are not in sync with the federal government. The Equitas lawyers said "these DOJ lawyers are making liars out of the Liberal government". That implies that the Equitas guys at least think that the DOJ is acting someone independently.

If they thought it was coming directly from the Trudeau government, he would say " the Liberal government ARE liars ".

This seems to me to be an obvious strategic move to play this out in the court of public opinion, which seems like a good idea to me.

I'm not too worried about lawyers wrangling during private meeting. That's what they do. The DoJ lawyers are trying to get a settlement that satisfies the olaintiffs while at the same time trying ti keep it as inexpensive as possible. And the plaintiffs are trying to squeeze every dime they can from the government. Thats how this works.

Let's talk when the government makes an official statement.

As for the " ABC" foolishness, you guys gave Harper 10 years to fix the mess that HE CREATED and now you want them back because Trudeau didn't snap his fingers and give us all pensions the day after the election? Grow up.


----------



## jollyjacktar

RobA said:
			
		

> It sounds like these DOJ lawyers are not in sync with the federal government. The Equitas lawyers said "these DOJ lawyers are making liars out of the Liberal government". That implies that the Equitas guys at least think that the DOJ is acting someone independently.
> 
> If they thought it was coming directly from the Trudeau government, he would say " the Liberal government ARE liars ".
> 
> This seems to me to be an obvious strategic move to play this out in the court of public opinion, which seems like a good idea to me.
> 
> I'm not too worried about lawyers wrangling during private meeting. That's what they do. The DoJ lawyers are trying to get a settlement that satisfies the olaintiffs while at the same time trying ti keep it as inexpensive as possible. And the plaintiffs are trying to squeeze every dime they can from the government. Thats how this works.
> 
> Let's talk when the government makes an official statement.
> 
> As for the " ABC" foolishness, you guys gave Harper 10 years to fix the mess that HE CREATED and now you want them back because Trudeau didn't snap his fingers and give us all pensions the day after the election? Grow up.



Who said anything about supporting Harper?  Besides, the Liberals started the ball rolling with Martin.  They're all equally guilty of bringing it into being as it is.  Memories a little short, eh?  Don't let your jaw hit the floor if the present GoC does as they've all done in the past and back off commitments after they've got what they want from the voters.


----------



## The Bread Guy

RobA said:
			
		

> It sounds like these DOJ lawyers are not in sync with the federal government. The Equitas lawyers said "these DOJ lawyers are making liars out of the Liberal government". That implies that the Equitas guys at least think that the DOJ is acting someone independently.


I'd bet a $50 donation to a wounded vets' charity that DOJ does _*NOT*_ act without government direction.  If the DOJ lawyers are correctly quoted, this government, no matter who's doing the talking, has clearly chosen to continue this litigation.

As recent history has shown, governments of all stripes can choose to start, continue or stop litigation - and can even complain about lawyers' fees for those forced to take the government to court in the first place.  

Also, the only commitment from the platform was ...


> ... We will re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans, and increase the value of the disability award ...


... with nothing mentioned about the NVC litigation that I can find - sneaky devils ...



			
				RobA said:
			
		

> Let's talk when the government makes an official statement.


Let me predict the essence of such a statement, which would come from someone asking about it, rather than the Minister or the Department issuing a news release saying, "yeah, we're going back to court against vets":


> We are committed to establishing sound policy, and ensuring Veterans and their families get the services they need, and that they are served with care, compassion and respect.  Since the issue is before the courts, I can't comment further.





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Don't let your jaw hit the floor if the present GoC does as they've all done in the past and back off commitments after they've got what they want from the voters.


Zackly - which is also why some figure _all_ politicians of _all_ stripes/colours suck on this issue.


----------



## ModlrMike

RobA said:
			
		

> As for the " ABC" foolishness, you guys gave Harper 10 years to fix the mess that HE CREATED and now you want them back because Trudeau didn't snap his fingers and give us all pensions the day after the election? Grow up.



You need to review your history. Yes, PM Harper didn't fix the mess, and he bears responsibility for that. But the NVC was crafted and championed by the proceeding Liberal government. That's the same party that today has to admit that they made a mistake.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

RobA said:
			
		

> It sounds like these DOJ lawyers are not in sync with the federal government. The Equitas lawyers said "these DOJ lawyers are making liars out of the Liberal government". That implies that the Equitas guys at least think that the DOJ is acting someone independently.
> 
> If they thought it was coming directly from the Trudeau government, he would say " the Liberal government ARE liars ".
> 
> This seems to me to be an obvious strategic move to play this out in the court of public opinion, which seems like a good idea to me.
> 
> I'm not too worried about lawyers wrangling during private meeting. That's what they do. The DoJ lawyers are trying to get a settlement that satisfies the olaintiffs while at the same time trying ti keep it as inexpensive as possible. And the plaintiffs are trying to squeeze every dime they can from the government. Thats how this works.
> 
> Let's talk when the government makes an official statement.
> 
> As for the " ABC" foolishness, you guys gave Harper 10 years to fix the mess that HE CREATED and now you want them back because Trudeau didn't snap his fingers and give us all pensions the day after the election? Grow up.





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Who said anything about supporting Harper?  Besides, the Liberals started the ball rolling with Martin.  They're all equally guilty of bringing it into being as it is.  Memories a little short, eh?  Don't let your jaw hit the floor if the present GoC does as they've all done in the past and back off commitments after they've got what they want from the voters.





			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You need to review your history. Yes, PM Harper didn't fix the mess, and he bears responsibility for that. But the NVC was crafted and championed by the proceeding Liberal government. That's the same party that today has to admit that they made a mistake.
> 
> Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.



For those, like Brihard, who wondered what I was talking about, this is the kind of stuff I meant. Nothing against the posters. We all do it sooner or later. This is wasted space and energy. We all know the NVC was championed by Martin, all parties then voted for it. Harper came and went, no change. Now it's the Liberals chance to fix it. We already know this. It's been stated a bunch of times. 

I just want us to start looking forward. The past can't be changed. The future can.

Partisan politics intruding on the thread situation only obscures the sight lines.

recceguy


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm confident the ABC masterminds are being well taken care of.


----------



## PuckChaser

I'd buy DoJ lawyers acting alone, except the guy who was fired for suggesting no social contract was promptly reassigned back to the case by the Liberals. No amount of hand wringing can get away from that fact.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd buy DoJ lawyers acting alone ...


You really think government lawyers freelance without getting direction from on high or telling anyone what they're going to do?  Just like staff, they can advise, but it's up to someone political to eventually decide "go ahead" or "pack 'er in."  I'd be happy to hear from any legal beagles here about how often government lawyers act without advice or direction from their client - and my $50-donation-to-a-wounded-vet-charity bet on that still stands.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ...  the guy who was fired for suggesting no social contract was promptly reassigned back to the case by the Liberals.


Do we know he was fired?  I haven't heard anything along those lines, especially if he was making an "approved" argument.  I stand to be corrected, though.


----------



## Teager

> Sorochan told CTV’s Power Play Wednesday that what the justice department has done now is ask the court to rule on whether the Conservatives were correct about there being no social contract with veterans.
> “When that argument was made in the courts, there was a public outcry saying, ‘How can you say there’s nothing special warranted for people that put their life on the line for their country?’” Sorochan said.
> He added that the argument was “repudiated by the Conservative government in its last days, was campaigned against by the Liberal government, and was certainly not accepted by any of the Liberals that I dealt with during the election campaign."
> Sorochan said he believes “progress" was made on programs for benefits by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, and that despite “some disappointment” that the Liberals had not honoured their pensions promise in their first budget, they may still be planning to do so.
> “I think what they want to do,” said Sorochan, “is they want to say ‘the government can do what it wants.’”
> “It happens to want to do good things for veterans now but it has no obligation to do them,” he added. “That’s the gist of what they’re arguing.”



More at link.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-accused-of-breaking-promise-to-uphold-sacred-obligation-to-veterans-1.2908124


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ... Let me predict the essence of such a statement, which would come from someone asking about it, rather than the Minister or the Department issuing a news release saying, "yeah, we're going back to court against vets":
> 
> 
> 
> We are committed to establishing sound policy, and ensuring Veterans and their families get the services they need, and that they are served with care, compassion and respect.  Since the issue is before the courts, I can't comment further.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

I was only close, and not very at that - forgot the reference to the mandate letter and Budget 2016 (not the first Minister to use that messaging) ...


> ... When asked about the lawsuit, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr said it would be inappropriate to comment on any lawsuits that are before the courts.
> 
> “Nevertheless, we’re moving ahead on our mandate to do better for veterans and their families. We delivered significantly on that in Budget 2016 on earning loss benefit, on the career impact allowance and the disability award. We continue to work through *the mandate letter* and to make veterans’ and their families’ lives better,” said Hehr before caucus ...


Mandate letter attached - we'll see ...

Here's the NDP's statement on the "Carry On Litigation!" reports:


> New Democrats are outraged by reports today that veterans are yet again being fought in court by their own government that will deny our heroes their benefits. This comes after the Liberal Party campaigned on bringing back a lifetime pension for veterans.
> 
> After Conservatives spent $700,000 fighting veterans in court, the Liberal government has hired the same lawyer used by the Conservatives, to try once again to deny that the government owes veterans a special obligation due to their service to this country.
> 
> "These veterans have earned our respect and deserve the benefits they are owed – continuing this shameful lawsuit is a disgrace," said Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe) NDP Critic for Veterans Affairs.
> 
> Just last year the House unanimously passed an NDP motion that recognizes Canada's covenant of moral, social, legal, and financial obligations to veterans ...


Nothing on the Conservative site as of this post - will share if/when an official news release statement is issued.


----------



## PuckChaser

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You really think government lawyers freelance without getting direction from on high or telling anyone what they're going to do?  Just like staff, they can advise, but it's up to someone political to eventually decide "go ahead" or "pack 'er in."  I'd be happy to hear from any legal beagles here about how often government lawyers act without advice or direction from their client - and my $50-donation-to-a-wounded-vet-charity bet on that still stands.Do we know he was fired?  I haven't heard anything along those lines, especially if he was making an "approved" argument.  I stand to be corrected, though.



I was trying to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt, I didn't think they'd slap us in the face that hard and fast after the election.

Also, the lawyer in question was removed from the case on recommendation from Erin O'Toole when he took over the VAC file, I highlighted that portion in the article I linked here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/105851/post-1435742.html#msg1435742


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I was trying to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt, I didn't think they'd slap us in the face that hard and fast after the election.


It was too easy for them - just letting the meter run out, so they could say, "hey, we didn't flick a switch". But even then, they _could_ still have said, "keep the pause button on" or "shut 'er down".  Well played politically, but nice (latest) kick in the 'nads for vets  :not-again:



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Also, the lawyer in question was removed from the case on recommendation from Erin O'Toole when he took over the VAC file, I highlighted that portion in the article I linked here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/105851/post-1435742.html#msg1435742


Seen - I stand corrected, and thanks for the reminder.

Meanwhile, the editorial cartoon machine didn't take long ...


----------



## PuckChaser

Great cartoon, drawn by an ex-CAF member.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Great cartoon, *drawn by an ex-CAF member*.


Really?  Cool.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

While each file is different, it’s quite possible that the DOJ lawyers are operating in a bit of a vacuum with limited updates to their instructions. It can be hard to get questions onto the ADM/DM’s agenda and even harder to get timely directions.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, there are basically two categories of litigation handled by the DOJ: 

First, there is the "general" litigation that do not raise policy issues, such as the run of the mill crown liability, or a labour case such as arbitration of a federal employee's firing, or a basic contract dispute, etc. These do not require any specific position on policy to be taken and are probably handled at a reasonably low level for instructions, perhaps no higher than director level, and once the instructions have been given, then they go on their merry way to resolution.

Second, there is the "special" litigation, which actually does raise policy issues and can have important repercussion on how a given piece of legislation will be applied thereafter. For those cases, it goes all the way up the chain and, if there is a change of government and the very policy at issue was the object of the new government's program in some form, you can be sure that the status of litigation and the current position - together with its rationale - has been fully exposed to the new minister and that he/she was advised on what should be done. If the Minster wishes to change the government position, he is then free to bring the matter to the PMO and thereafter, change the instructions to his DM.

It's now been more than six months. You can be sure that this matter was briefed to the new Minister early on and if there have been no change in instructions, it is because the government does not plan to take a different position.


----------



## TCM621

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, there are basically two categories of litigation handled by the DOJ:
> 
> First, there is the "general" litigation that do not raise policy issues, such as the run of the mill crown liability, or a labour case such as arbitration of a federal employee's firing, or a basic contract dispute, etc. These do not require any specific position on policy to be taken and are probably handled at a reasonably low level for instructions, perhaps no higher than director level, and once the instructions have been given, then they go on their merry way to resolution.
> 
> Second, there is the "special" litigation, which actually does raise policy issues and can have important repercussion on how a given piece of legislation will be applied thereafter. For those cases, it goes all the way up the chain and, if there is a change of government and the very policy at issue was the object of the new government's program in some form, you can be sure that the status of litigation and the current position - together with its rationale - has been fully exposed to the new minister and that he/she was advised on what should be done. If the Minster wishes to change the government position, he is then free to bring the matter to the PMO and thereafter, change the instructions to his DM.
> 
> It's now been more than six months. You can be sure that this matter was briefed to the new Minister early on and if there have been no change in instructions, it is because the government does not plan to take a different position.


Not to mention,  the minister would have to be a moron not to know that this is a major issue. The only way this does not the minister's direct (or inferred ) approval is if he gives zero Fucks about his file.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> While each file is different, it’s quite possible that the DOJ lawyers are operating in a bit of a vacuum with limited updates to their instructions. It can be hard to get questions onto the ADM/DM’s agenda and even harder to get timely directions.


Good points.  The "Yes, Minister" in me pictures a scenario where someone (not the Minister himself) thought, "it's on a timer countdown - maybe we shouldn't draw the eye to it, one way or another," leading to resumption by omission (still a decision). That said ...


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> *You can be sure that this matter was briefed to the new Minister early on* ...


... I'm guessing this isn't something one would bury as Appendix Z of the incoming Minister's briefing binder, either.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Is this _really_ the best Team Red can do?


> ... (Veterans Affairs Minister) Hehr told CTV’s Power Play Friday that the government is not “taking veterans to court,” but merely continuing a suit that has been “ongoing for years.” He said the lawsuit “was filed by veterans under the former government as a result of their lack of attention to veterans’ issues.” ...


This government stopped other cases in court, some brought to court by others,, but it chooses not to abandon this one?!?!?!?!

Jesus.  H.  Tapdancing.  Christ.   :facepalm:

To bastardize the hashtag recommended by VAC on Twitter, #rememberthemincourtonly


----------



## PuckChaser

More salt in the wounds of Canada's veterans. Are the Liberals hoping we give up fighting because they're not going to make it retroactive for us? Highlights are mine.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-committed-to-lifelong-pension-option-for-injured-vets-but-may-not-be-retroactive-1.2911500



> Liberals 'committed' to lifelong pension option for injured vets, but may not be retroactive
> 
> Veteran Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says the Liberal government is not taking veterans to court.
> 
> Josh Dehaas, CTVNews.ca
> Published Friday, May 20, 2016 7:08PM EDT
> Last Updated Friday, May 20, 2016 8:30PM EDT
> 
> Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says the Liberals are committed to a lifelong pension option for injured veterans, but he will not say whether his government intends to offer the pensions retroactively to those who have already received lump sums.
> 
> The Liberal government was accused this week by both the New Democrats and Conservatives of breaking campaign promises to veterans, after it proceeded to fight a lawsuit brought forward by veterans in 2012, who have argued that Canada has a sacred obligation to provide the pensions and other benefits.
> 
> Funded by the group Equitas Society, the lawsuit was put on hold last year after the Conservative government made a number of changes to appease veterans, who had been particularly enraged by the introduction of the lump sum payments in 2005 -- a change that all three major parties initially supported. Equitas argues that the lump sums result in less money over time.
> Related Stories
> 
> During last year’s election, the Liberals promised to bring back the pensions and to end the lawsuit. Don Sorochan, the lawyer working for the plaintiffs, said at the time that he expected the election would help the veterans get what they wanted. Some injured vets campaigned for the Liberals.
> 
> *Sorochan told CTV News earlier this week he felt “betrayed” after the justice department asked a judge to rule on the arguments the Conservatives had made in the case, rather than dropping it.*



Note the last line here. They're not taking us to court, they're just wanting the judge to rule on the arguments the "Evil Conservatives" used, despite the fact that the lawyer who the Tories removed from the case for using those arguments, was reinstated by the Liberals as soon as they could. They've already set a precedent on retroactivity for payments (this year's budget for DA retroactive to 2006), but upon realizing how much its going to cost them, they're wavering. We can always take them to court over it, right?


----------



## Teager

From what I understand this lawsuit if successful opens the door for serving CAF members and Veterans to sue the GOC. This lawsuit isn't so much about benefits and pensions as it is about having the ability to sue the government. The government wants to have the freedom to do what it wants without being sued.


----------



## brihard

The liberals are screwing this one up badly. My speculation is thus:

They are going to stick to the mandate letter, meaning veterans will see life-long penions restores. _But_, the lawsuit has a second order effect that is of greater significance than the main thrust of the suit itself. That is to say, it would open the flood gates to serving military members (four of the plaintiffs were serving at the time of filing) suing the government over benefits.

Recognize that in the larger context, this is at the same time the the RCMP, another federal organization, has finally won the right to unionize, and also at the same time faces charges under the labour code. I suspect the government is quietly afraid that the Equitas lawsuit would present significant long term liability risk from soldiers and veterans suing over all manner of other matters. Equitas has accidentallly become a lightning rod for a larger legal principle that the government rightly fears.


----------



## Teager

Would the government not be gambling with this tho? If the government loses than the gates are open. If they had given a timeline for the pension and met what the Equitas group was asking for in writing the lawsuit would have been dropped. I'm guessing the government is sure they will win this.


----------



## TCM621

Brihard said:
			
		

> The liberals are screwing this one up badly. My speculation is thus:
> 
> They are going to stick to the mandate letter, meaning veterans will see life-long penions restores. _But_, the lawsuit has a second order effect that is of greater significance than the main thrust of the suit itself. That is to say, it would open the flood gates to serving military members (four of the plaintiffs were serving at the time of filing) suing the government over benefits.
> 
> Recognize that in the larger context, this is at the same time the the RCMP, another federal organization, has finally won the right to unionize, and also at the same time faces charges under the labour code. I suspect the government is quietly afraid that the Equitas lawsuit would present significant long term liability risk from soldiers and veterans suing over all manner of other matters. Equitas has accidentallly become a lightning rod for a larger legal principle that the government rightly fears.


They could always settle. Then there would be no legally binding decision.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Now that I've cooled off a bit, I just want to give a shout out to those involved in talking with the government about what should happen & how the pension should be implemented - you guys have more patience than I would have.  Good luck with the hard work.


----------



## brihard

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> They could always settle. Then there would be no legally binding decision.



Yup, but there's still a political precedent set, and it would embolden others. They know the lawsuit will take years yet, and I suspect they want to simply deal with the pension issue next budget and pull the rug out from under the suit. A settlement would be difficult in this case, since the desired outcome isn't simply a big cheque cut for six hurting troops, but rather a major policy change. The suit and the stuff surrounding it are both complex.

One of the plaintiffs is a good friend, as is one of the other guys helping assist with the case. This whole thing has taken such a painful toll on those involved.


----------



## PuckChaser

The only 2 lawsuits the Liberals haven't settled is Equitas and HEA from Maj. Brauer. Very clearly indicates how deep their support actually went. I completely agree with Brihard here, if they don't make a major announcement in the fall, or by the next budget, they will completely destroy any goodwill from vets, and will forever be unable to use "we're better than the Tories were".


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The only 2 lawsuits the Liberals haven't settled is Equitas and HEA from Maj. Brauer.



Major Brauer lost his case a couple weeks ago:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/maj-marcus-brauer-calls-for-review-after-losing-moving-compensation-case-1.3069505

Of course, he is calling for a "review", but for now it is closed.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This, from the Minister, via Facebook (also attached in case link doesn't work):


> Recent reports have suggested that the Government of Canada is taking veterans to court. This is simply not true. There is an ongoing lawsuit which began many years before we came into office. I find it deeply regrettable that after years of neglect, veterans felt they had to take the previous government to court to ensure their own well-being.
> 
> It is precisely because of this that I was given a strong mandate to restore critical access to services for veterans, and to ensure the long-term financial security and independence of disabled veterans and their families. This includes providing a pension option for injured veterans, and I can assure Canadians that I remain committed to this, and to fulfilling all items in my mandate letter.
> 
> The Government of Canada has already taken a very big step forward with Budget 2016, which delivered $5.6 billion in additional support to ensure that Canadian veterans and their families receive the care, compassion, and respect they deserve. Canada’s veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of our country, and they deserve our unwavering support.
> 
> In fact, Mr. Sorochan, the veterans’ lawyer in this case, has said that he is 90% supportive of what we are doing, and that includes our plan to consult broadly with veterans. We know that these consultations are critical to making sure that all veterans' voices are included as we move forward.
> 
> In our first six months, we have demonstrated our commitment to veterans by hosting two Stakeholder Summits, establishing six ministerial advisory groups to advise on specific issues, creating an online “have your say” tool for veterans and Canadians to weigh in on these issues, and launching a cross country tour, where I will be able to sit down with veterans and get their input on our top priorities.
> 
> While I cannot discuss the specifics of an ongoing court case, I hope this letter has clarified a few key points to ensure that Canadians have as many facts as possible.
> 
> There is a lot of work to be done—and the broader veteran community has made it clear that we must not to rush into a 'band-aid' solution. We will respect that wish and work with veterans to improve the service they receive, and to make sure that veterans are treated with care, compassion, and respect.


I get it:  they're not _taking_ vets to court, they're just _keeping_ them in court.  We'll see which gets settled first:  pensions, or litigation.  op:


----------



## PuckChaser

Politicking BS. Blame the evil Tories narrative. This Kent Hehr guy sounds more and more like a party shill. They could kept the lawyer off the case who tried to use the no social contract argument. They could have asked for more time so they could work through the process they started. Instead, they let the stay expire and asked for a ruling on whether we have a social contract to veterans.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Shill?  WTF do you expect them to do. He has his marching orders. No different from any other party.


----------



## PuckChaser

I was told these guys were Real Change and Sunny Ways, not more of the same.


----------



## 57Chevy

My opinion only here is that the Federal Government has responsibility to their soldiers no matter how you look at it.
We all know that responsibility cannot be delegated, perhaps assumed (like the Provincial Governments
do of late regarding Veterans Hospitals), but the onus remains with the Federal Government toward their Injured.


----------



## TCM621

When did "I can't comment on an ongoing case" thing become acceptable? We see it everywhere now. You can comment you just don't want to because it maybe detrimental to your case, which you say isn't yours but your predecessor's. You are the boss and if you wanted to end it you could.


----------



## George Wallace

57Chevy said:
			
		

> My opinion only here is that the Federal Government has responsibility to their soldiers no matter how you look at it.
> We all know that responsibility cannot be delegated, perhaps assumed (like the Provincial Governments
> do of late regarding Veterans Hospitals), but the onus remains with the Federal Government toward their Injured.



Even if MPs would treat other government employees as they treat themselves, it may be nice......But we all know that won't happen......Some animals are more equal than others.


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I was told these guys were Real Change and Sunny Ways, not more of the same.



Perhaps he mixed up Sunny Ways with SALY.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Liberal MP caught spreading outright lies to his constituents about the restoration of lifetime pensions.  No surprise here, more Liberal lies...


Liberal MP's flyer wrongly tells constituents Liberals restored veterans' pensions

'Personally, I think he's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes,' father of Afghan veteran says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-mp-veterans-flyer-wrong-1.3628574


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Liberal MP caught spreading outright lies to his constituents about the restoration of lifetime pensions.  No surprise here, more Liberal lies...
> 
> 
> Liberal MP's flyer wrongly tells constituents Liberals restored veterans' pensions
> 
> 'Personally, I think he's trying to pull the wool over people's eyes,' father of Afghan veteran says
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-mp-veterans-flyer-wrong-1.3628574


Stand by for tighter message control, in 3 ... 2 ...


----------



## Teager

What's worse is that Liberal MP mentioned he is a former CAF member.


----------



## gryphonv

Teager said:
			
		

> What's worse is that Liberal MP mentioned he is a former CAF member.



I hope that is true. 

But I would like to see this brought up in question period. We need everything possible to keep Veterans issues at the forefront of the news. This blunder/lie or whatever you want to call it, could only serve to help us in the long run.


----------



## PuckChaser

Teager said:
			
		

> What's worse is that Liberal MP mentioned he is a former CAF member.



He's still a member of the CAF, in the Naval Reserve in Winnipeg. I just looked him up on the GAL based on a Wikipedia entry. How that's allowed, I don't know.


----------



## mariomike

Teager said:
			
		

> What's worse is that Liberal MP mentioned he is a former CAF member.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's still a member of the CAF, in the Naval Reserve in Winnipeg. I just looked him up on the GAL based on a Wikipedia entry. How that's allowed, I don't know.



Some discussion here,

Running for political office while in the reserves? 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/117776.0

CF Pers and national political involvement  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/36903.0

Keep Politics Away From Forces  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/91014/post-896934.html#msg896934
Reply #16 and #17.

etc...


----------



## Teager

EQUITAS COURT DATE
FRIDAY JUNE.17/2016 8:30AM
BC SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

Going around on FB.


----------



## Lightguns

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's still a member of the CAF, in the Naval Reserve in Winnipeg. I just looked him up on the GAL based on a Wikipedia entry. How that's allowed, I don't know.



I seem to recall that he is in the band on that stone frigate, so I doubt his participation in politics will affect the unit in any way.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I seem to recall that he is in the band on that stone frigate, so I doubt his participation in politics will affect the unit in any way.


Nonetheless, the _appearance_ of issues is often enough, even in the absence of _real_ issues.  If the Minister had to quit, one would think the same rule applies for everyone, right?


			
				Teager said:
			
		

> EQUITAS COURT DATE
> FRIDAY JUNE.17/2016 8:30AM
> BC SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
> 
> Going around on FB.


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Teager

Mostly a recap.



> Veterans say government is breaking election promises by taking them back to court.
> 
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> Published Monday, Jun. 13, 2016 8:31PM EDT
> Last updated Monday, Jun. 13, 2016 11:52PM EDT
> 
> Wounded veterans will be back in court this week to fight the federal government’s contention that it has no special obligation to former soldiers in a case that has been reopened by the Justice Department to the chagrin of veterans’ groups across the country.
> 
> In documents filed with the British Columbia Court of Appeal on Monday, the lawyer for the six veterans involved in the lawsuit is asking the court to refuse the government’s request that the court rule on an appeal in the case. He says the Liberal government is returning to arguments that it campaigned against, and is breaking promises that helped get it elected. The case has been on hold for a year.
> 
> The central issue in dispute – the assertion that there is no “social covenant or social contract” between veterans and the Canadian government – inflamed veterans when it was first advanced in the B.C. Supreme Court by the previous Conservative government.
> 
> The Liberal government is abandoning promises to settle matters, said Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the vets whose firm, Miller Thomson, has agreed to let him do the work pro bono. The Liberals “are not keeping that commitment,” he said, “nor are they keeping their platform commitments,” which are reiterated in ministerial mandate letters.
> 
> Bruce Moncur, a veterans’ advocate from Windsor, Ont., is urging veterans to show up at the courthouse wearing their medals to support those involved in the lawsuit. “It is a stab in the back,” Mr. Moncur said. “A lot of vets saw the Liberal platform and voted for it because it was the best one.”
> 
> The six wounded veterans launched the suit against the government in 2012, with the thought of eventually turning it into a class action. They said they should not be forced to accept less compensation for their injuries than what they would have received through the civil courts or workers’ compensation.
> 
> Among other things, they wanted a reinstatement of the lifetime pensions for wounded veterans that had been replaced in 2006 by the New Veterans Charter that relies largely on lump-sum payments.
> 
> Justice Department lawyers responded by saying there is no extraordinary social covenant owed to veterans, other than what Parliament decides to give them, and filed a motion asking for the case to be dismissed. The court ruled against that motion and the government appealed.
> 
> That set off a firestorm, both in the veterans’ community and in the Commons where the opposition decried the government’s treatment of those who were permanently disabled in the military service of Canada. Justin Trudeau, who was then Liberal leader, asked the government “to live up to our sacred obligation, end this court battle, and start giving our veterans the help they deserve.”
> 
> The Conservative government agreed to put its appeal on hold in May, 2015, and the two sides tried to find a private resolution.
> 
> In the lead-up to the fall election, the Liberals promised to reinstate the lifetime pensions and persuaded the veterans who were part of the suit to appear with them at campaign events.
> 
> After the Liberals won, Mr. Trudeau said in Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr’s mandate letter that the minister must ensure that the “government lives up to our sacred obligation to veterans,” and that he must “re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans.” Mr. Sorochan said the veterans agreed to drop the suit if the government would set timelines for acting on the mandate letter.
> 
> But that has not happened. The pensions were not included in the March budget and, when the abeyance period in the lawsuit expired May of this year, Mr. Hehr signed off on sending the case back to the B.C. Court of Appeal.
> 
> Government lawyers have asked the Court of Appeal to render judgment on the same arguments that they advanced initially – that there was no special social obligation owed to veterans.
> 
> Michael Blais, the president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, said most veterans he knows are furious about the decision. “I don’t think I have talked to anyone who is not angry about it,” said Mr. Blais, who sits on government advisory groups that are discussing ways to treat veterans more fairly.
> 
> Mr. Hehr said in a statement on Monday that his government did not take veterans to court. “This is part of an ongoing lawsuit which began many years before we came into office. I find it deeply regrettable that, under the former government, veterans had to take this step to ensure their well-being,” the minister said.
> 
> “Canadians gave us a strong mandate to repair the relationship with veterans, especially for those who became ill or were injured in the course of their service,” he said. “One focus is to make veterans financially secure through the provision of a life-long pension option and I can assure Canadians that I remain committed to this, and to fulfilling all items in my mandate letter.”



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-government-breaking-pension-pledge-to-injured-veterans-lawyer/article30438822/


----------



## Lightguns

As the legion found out in 2004, be careful the lying politician you stand up with....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The libs dropped almost every outstanding CPC court case when they took over. They could have done the same with this one. They are being disingenuous, at minimum, and responsible for the state of all Veteran health issues since being elected.

For any Veteran, who's injuries deteriorate, who decides there is but one way left out, for Veteran's spouses that are losing their homes because of the way survivor pensions are being mismanaged, for lack of offices and programs, there is but one entity to blame.

The Trudeau Liberals. 

They have been in power long enough to be on their own path by now. It's time for them to stop blaming the CPC for every little thing that they need shoved under the rug.

Veterans (and gun owners) are once again in a mug's game. We vote for the promises of these two faced politicians in the hope things will get better. What we get, after they have our vote and power, is more bald faced lies and betrayal.

The ripple effect can become wide spread. Who would want to join the military, sign on for unlimited liability when you know there is no social contract with the government and yourself. That if you're injured, the same government will relegate you to third class citizenship and leave you destitute in your life after service.

WSIB are huge friggin' dicks when it comes to fairly compensating injured workers but they are like a benevolent uncle compared to VAC and the government.

The Trudeau Liberals have been throwing billions of dollars, no strings attached to countries all over the world since they were elected and they can't find any money to upgrade the benefits of Canada's warriors. The ones that have made it possible for Canadians and their government to be part of the world stage.

Shame on them.


----------



## Jed

recceguy said:
			
		

> The libs dropped almost every outstanding CPC court case when they took over. They could have done the same with this one. They are being disingenuous, at minimum, and responsible for the state of all Veteran health issues since being elected.
> 
> For any Veteran, who's injuries deteriorate, who decides there is but one way left out, for Veteran's spouses that are losing their homes because of the way survivor pensions are being mismanaged, for lack of offices and programs, there is but one entity to blame.
> 
> The Trudeau Liberals.
> 
> They have been in power long enough to be on their own path by now. It's time for them to stop blaming the CPC for every little thing that they need shoved under the rug.
> 
> Veterans (and gun owners) are once again in a mug's game. We vote for the promises of these two faced politicians in the hope things will get better. What we get, after they have our vote and power, is more bald faced lies and betrayal.
> 
> The ripple effect can become wide spread. Who would want to join the military, sign on for unlimited liability when you know there is no social contract with the government and yourself. That if you're injured, the same government will relegate you to third class citizenship and leave you destitute in your life after service.
> 
> WSIB are huge friggin' dicks when it comes to fairly compensating injured workers but they are like a benevolent uncle compared to VAC and the government.
> 
> The Trudeau Liberals have been throwing billions of dollars, no strings attached to countries all over the world since they were elected and they can't find any money to upgrade the benefits of Canada's warriors. The ones that have made it possible for Canadians and their government to be part of the world stage.
> 
> Shame on them.



Well said.  And to all those serving and gullible and / or naive folks who championed the JT Liberals, you were well warned.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm sure their cheerleading section won't be the least bit put off with the disingenuous performance of the Lieberals.  New faces, same old BS.


----------



## FSTO

The federal government and all its bureaucrats have two preferred methods of dealing with us. We retire with all our limbs intact and mind sound or we are turned into red mist on the battlefield. They love option two because they don't have to provide a casket or a flight home for the body. They reluctantly give us our service pension (that we have paid into throughout our careers) but it is a constant battle against the blood sucking vampires at Treasury Board from nipping away at even that benefit. 

 To most of the senior members of the public service, the military is unnecessary and unneeded drain on their time and energy and if they had their way, the duties and responsibilities of the RCN, RCAF and CA would be subcontracted to the United States (which they have done as much as possible anyway) 

 Rudyard Kipling said it all over a 100 years ago and it is still true today, no matter who is in government. 
 (Last verse of "Tommy") 

 You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: 
 We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. 
 Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face 
 The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. 
 For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" 
 But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot; 
 An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; 
 An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!


----------



## Teager

> disabled Veterans’ Case Management Conference – BC Court of Appeal – Friday, June 17, 2016 - Law Courts, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver at 9:30 a.m.
> The Case Management Conference is an open court hearing before a single judge of the Court of Appeals to hear submissions of the parties as why the Court should not act upon the Government’s request that they render the Court’s decision based upon the Government’s argument on the December 2014 appeal hearing. The Representative Plaintiffs (Respondents) submit that the Court should consider that the Government had settled the appeal with the Respondents and had agreed to abandon the appeal because of the repudiation after the appeal hearing of the position of the Government with respect to the concept of a social covenant or contract for veterans. These changed positions were declared by the new Veterans’ Affairs Minister (Erin O’Toole) and by senior members of all current Politic Parties.
> Concerned citizens and veterans are entitled to attend this case management conference.
> Thereby:
> At the direction of the Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman by memorandum dated May 31, 2016, a Case Management Conference for this proceeding has been set to be held at the Law Courts, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver at 9:30 a.m. on June 17, 2016 to consider what, if any, further steps should be taken as a result of the position communicated to the Court by Counsel for the Appellants on May 16, 2016 that the Court is now free to render its decision in the appeal heard on December 3 and 4, 2014 and the position communicated to the Court by Counsel for the Respondents on May 18, 2016 that it would be inappropriate for the Court to do so.
> In order for the Court to consider the issues raised by the differing positions of the parties, it is the submission of the Respondents that the Court must consider all of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and performance of the settlement agreement known as the Abeyance Agreement dated May 27, 2015.
> In determining whether the Appellants have breached or evinced an intention to breach the settlement agreement the Court must objectively construe the purported breaching party’s intention and to do so all of the surrounding circumstances to the agreement and its performance should be considered. Since the surrounding circumstances to the settlement agreement involves political and national public policy issues, reference is made to Proceedings of Parliament as recorded in Hansard.



https://www.facebook.com/Equitas-Society-244969555566649/


----------



## Teager

Some of the government lawyers arguments.



> The factum was filed by Paul Vickery, a Justice Department lawyer who was subsequently removed from the case by former Conservative veterans affairs minister Erin O’Toole when animosity between veterans groups and the government was boiling over. The Liberal government has now returned Mr. Vickery to the file.
> 
> In the documents he filed this week, the government also discounts the importance of a House of Commons motion brought last May by New Democratic Party MP Fin Donnelly that said Ottawa is “obligated” to “provide equitable financial compensation” to injured and deceased veterans.
> 
> Even though the Liberals voted in favour of Mr. Donnelly’s motion, the new government court document says: “The House of Commons motion referenced by the plaintiffs, while it records the opinion of the then members of Parliament on the matters referred to in the motion, does not have the force of law and cannot bind the federal government.”
> 
> The two sides will debate arguments before the B.C. Appeal Court in Vancouver next week and veterans groups say they will be there to demonstrate their anger.



More at link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-owes-veterans-no-duty-of-care-federal-lawyers-argue-in-case/article30465871/


----------



## Journeyman

Teager said:
			
		

> The factum was filed by Paul Vickery, a Justice Department lawyer who was subsequently removed from the case by former Conservative veterans affairs minister Erin O’Toole when animosity between veterans groups and the government was boiling over. The Liberal government has now returned Mr. Vickery to the file.


Ah, back... but now with an additional personal grudge   :


----------



## PuckChaser

Personal grudge and political top cover to run with it. Remember guys, Trudeau said no veteran should ever have to sue his government for benefits, so this is just a figment of our imagination.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hey, why rewrite the briefs from the previous court appearances/run past management's play book if they help you avoid spending *HUGE* bucks, right?   :facepalm:

#rememberthemonlyincourt


----------



## gryphonv

QUOTE: In the new court documents filed on Monday on behalf of the government, the Justice Department says “the submissions made by [former Conservative attorney-general Rob Nicholson] on the hearing of the appeal, and as set out in the factum filed by him, accurately reflect the current position of the federal government.”


----------



## The Bread Guy

gryphonv said:
			
		

> QUOTE: In the new court documents filed on Monday on behalf of the government, the Justice Department says “the submissions made by [former Conservative attorney-general Rob Nicholson] on the hearing of the appeal, and as set out in the factum filed by him, accurately reflect the current position of the federal government.”


Team Blue/Team Red, don't matter - it's about the *$*


----------



## Lightguns

ABC Veterans does even mention it on their twitter, Canadian Veterans Advocacy just re-tweets meaningless motherhood liberal tweets.  Veterans against the CPC is silent.  I see nothing on the legion site or twitter in terms of press releases.  Seems we are all happy with the liberals latests moves on this file.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ABC Veterans does even mention it on their twitter, Canadian Veterans Advocacy just re-tweets meaningless motherhood liberal tweets.  Veterans against the CPC is silent.  I see nothing on the legion site or twitter in terms of press releases.  Seems we are all happy with the liberals latests moves on this file.


#rememberthemonlyincourt


----------



## TCM621

Has anyone attempted to reach out to the MND or Gen Leslie to remind them of the fate of their brothers and sisters in Arms? It would be dirty pool but a disabled veteran who served with/under them  bringing it up publicly them might get some high profile liberals on our side.


----------



## Journeyman

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Has anyone attempted to reach out to the MND or Gen Leslie to remind them of the fate of their brothers and sisters in Arms? It would be dirty pool but a disabled veteran who served with/under them  bringing it up publicly them might get some high profile liberals on our side.


I doubt if it would make the slightest bit of difference -- the government seems particularly immune to criticism (what scarce amount the media actually provides).


----------



## The Bread Guy

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Has anyone attempted to reach out to the MND or Gen Leslie to remind them of the fate of their brothers and sisters in Arms? It would be dirty pool but a disabled veteran who served with/under them  bringing it up publicly them might get some high profile liberals on our side.


If "the team" says "go ahead with don't stop the litigation, and don't crank out the pensions yet", no individual player would be able to say different publicly (no matter what colour the team jerseys are) unless they were prepared to leave the team.

If a cabinet minister was upset enough over the issue to resign in protest, that WOULD send a _*significant*_ signal - but what are the chances of _that_ happening?  

"Those in cabinet who publicly disagree with cabinet-government's direction, one pace forward - MARCH."  :crickets:


----------



## ModlrMike

Interesting article:

The Veterans: What happened to the honour of the parliamentarians?

Posted by Ujjal Dosanjh on Thursday, 16 June 2016

Veterans! we sent them to wars and they happily risked their lives for us. As I write these lines some of our soldiers, veterans of tomorrow, are in the battlefield in Iraq, in harms' way. There they are doing what we have asked them to do: help destroy the genocidal ISIS.

As our soldiers stand on guard for us in Iraq and the government is considering despatching more of them to Europe, their comrades are being forced to do battle by our newly elected government in a court of law. Unfortunately the new government has resumed the fight the previous government had started with them but from which it had later retreated prior to the last election.

More at LINK


----------



## TCM621

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If "the team" says "go ahead with don't stop the litigation, and don't crank out the pensions yet", no individual player would be able to say different publicly (no matter what colour the team jerseys are) unless they were prepared to leave the team.
> 
> If a cabinet minister was upset enough over the issue to resign in protest, that WOULD send a _*significant*_ signal - but what are the chances of _that_ happening?
> 
> "Those in cabinet who publicly disagree with cabinet-government's direction, one pace forward - MARCH."  :crickets:


Not really looking for a public response but if they can't be forced to remember the responsibility they were entrusted with as Officers and that some of these people were friends, subordinates, and members of the same family,  they might have a little more fire in their bellies at the next caucus meeting.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Somewhat off topic but correct me if I'm wrong.  It was under the conservatives that Vet pension when from monthly payments to a lump sum correct?
I ask because I got a letter from Cheryl Gallant saying I need to support the conservatives in order to change the single pension payout that the liberals are responsible for.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Somewhat off topic but correct me if I'm wrong.  It was under the conservatives that Vet pension when from monthly payments to a lump sum correct?
> I ask because I got a letter from Cheryl Gallant saying I need to support the conservatives in order to change the single pension payout that the liberals are responsible for.



All parties voted for the NVC but it was tabled and passed under the Martin (liberal) government. It was a liberal initiative, nobody elses.


----------



## ModlrMike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Somewhat off topic but correct me if I'm wrong.  It was under the conservatives that Vet pension when from monthly payments to a lump sum correct?
> I ask because I got a letter from Cheryl Gallant saying I need to support the conservatives in order to change the single pension payout that the liberals are responsible for.



It was the perfect poison pill. The Liberals had a good idea that their government was stale dated. They managed this legislation in such a way as to trap both opposition parties prior to a general election. It was also offside, in that the rules changed while we had CF members getting shot at. That the Conservatives didn't change things for the better during their tenure is certainly their albatross.


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> All parties voted for the NVC but it was tabled and passed under the Martin (liberal) government. It was a liberal initiative, nobody elses.


And it didn't get fixed when it could have, did it?  


			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> That the Conservatives didn't change things for the better during their tenure is certainly their albatross.


 :nod:


----------



## Teager

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Somewhat off topic but correct me if I'm wrong.  It was under the conservatives that Vet pension when from monthly payments to a lump sum correct?
> I ask because I got a letter from Cheryl Gallant saying I need to support the conservatives in order to change the single pension payout that the liberals are responsible for.



Is that just the MP saying that or the Conservative party saying it? Either way I don't buy a pension payment from any party. Sure the liberals will probably bring something that might look like a pension but I somehow think it will be something that still saves money.


----------



## Teager

Legal documents that have been submitted. 

http://equitassociety.ca/legal-action.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... I got a letter from Cheryl Gallant saying I need to support the conservatives in order to change the single pension payout that the liberals are responsible for.


Also keep in mind the Member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has a ... less-than-stellar track record of grasping details about how things work - more examples here.


----------



## Jarnhamar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Also keep in mind the Member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has a ... less-than-stellar track record of grasping details about how things work - more examples here.


AhAh,  so she was kind of being honest.  Still I have zero faith that what she was saying would happen (Conservatives reversing the ruling).  If it wasn't for the liberals take on guns I probably would have voted for my local liberal or NDP MP to spite her.  Or even a pineapple. 

But ya little late in the game for those reelection tricks. 
Wonder how all this (lawsuit stuff)  makes the ABC crowd feel.


----------



## Teager

I'm hearing the vets scored a victory in court today just waiting on an official source.

This makes me scratch my head tho. Sacred obligation when there fighting there isn't one?




> OTTAWA, June 17, 2016 /CNW/ - The Honourable Kent Hehr, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, issued the following statement:
> 
> "In last year's election campaign, we promised Canadians a government that would uphold our sacred obligation to Veterans. That promise was reiterated in my mandate letter and I remain committed to it.
> 
> "We have a mandate to serve Canadian Armed Forces members, Veterans and their families, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I believe it is my responsibility as Canada's Minister of Veterans Affairs, on behalf of all Canadians, to make sure their service to Canada is recognized and honoured.
> 
> "To me, that means we work to provide Veterans and their families with the best benefits and services we can. We have made great strides in doing just that. You need look no further than what our Government has done to increase the Disability Award, expand access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance, provide injured Veterans with 90 percent of their pre-release salary, and the list goes on.
> 
> "It means that we treat each and every Veteran with care, compassion and respect. It means that we help every Veteran and his or her family make the sometimes difficult transition from military to civilian life. It means that we honour every Veteran's service in a meaningful way. That is my job. And, make no mistake, I consider the work we do to be part of a sacred obligation to Canada's Veterans and their families. We clearly recognize that obligation to Veterans and the Prime Minister said exactly that in his mandate letter.
> 
> "We delivered on $5.6 billion in financial security in Budget 2016 and will continue delivering on each item outlined by the Prime Minister in his mandate letter, including the option for lifelong pensions for injured Veterans."



http://cnw.en.mediaroom.com


----------



## Teager

> VANCOUVER – A group of severely wounded military veterans has notched a victory in its years-long battle for better benefits from the Canadian government.
> 
> A British Columbia Appeal Court judge says the court will consider whether to take into account contradictions between the Liberal government’s current position on what it owes modern-day veterans and promises the party made during last year’s election.
> 
> The court will also consider whether to look at the Trudeau government’s decision to adopt a stance against the veterans that was initially held by the Conservative government, before it was dropped in response to a public backlash.
> 
> Don Sorochan, the lawyer representing the veterans, said outside the court that politicians can’t go around making promises they don’t keep when it comes to constitutional obligations around its so-called sacred covenant with soldiers.
> 
> Sorochan also noted that the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to adopt a position it previously discarded, especially after passing a unanimous resolution affirming Canada’s duty to its veterans.
> 
> The class-action lawsuit argues that modern-day soldiers are discriminated against compared with those who fought in earlier wars and that they should receive comparable compensation.



http://www.citynews.ca/2016/06/17/judge-in-wounded-veterans-case-agrees-to-consider-government-contradictions/


----------



## Teager

Bit more info..



> June 17, 2016 Legal Update-Donald J. Sorochan, QC, Counsel, Miller Thomson
> Veteran Class Action Case - Update on the Court of Appeal Case Management Conference [MTDMS-Legal.FID4863103]
> All:
> By way of an update as to what happened at the Court of Appeal Case Management Conference that took place this morning before Mr. Justice Groberman, the presiding justice of the Court of Appeal panel hearing the appeal.
> I would point out that the Minister frequently states that the Veterans are taking him to court on long-standing litigation. In fact, this appeal is the appeal of the Government from their loss before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on their motion to dismiss.
> The Court did not agree with the submissions of counsel for the Attorney General that judgment should be rendered by the Court of Appeal based upon the arguments raised in December of 2014.
> The Court ordered that all of the materials and that the Respondent Veterans and the Attorney General have put before the Court for the purposed of the Case Management Conference will be considered by the full panel of the Court. The submissions of the Respondents that the Government ought not be permitted to resile from its commitments in the settlement (Abeyance Agreement) and as raised in our materials was characterized by Mr. Justice Groberman as an abuse of process argument, although we had not used that term in our materials.
> Mr. Justice Groberman advised the parties that the panel will consider all of the materials filed (e. g. recent statements of politicians) and will deliver a reserved judgment. He advised the parties that because there are a number of judgments currently on reserve, judgment should not be expected until after the summer recess.
> Donald J. Sorochan, QC
> Counsel
> Miller Thomson LLP



https://www.facebook.com/Equitas-Society-244969555566649/


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> I'm hearing the vets scored a victory in court today just waiting on an official source.
> 
> This makes me scratch my head tho. Sacred obligation when there fighting there isn't one?
> 
> 
> http://cnw.en.mediaroom.com


And here's the Minister's statement attached, in case the previous link doesn't work for you - or in case the statement eventually disappears.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> “To me, that means we work to provide Veterans and their families with the best benefits and services we can. We have made great strides in doing just that. You need look no further than what our Government has done to increase the Disability Award, expand access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance, provide injured Veterans with 90 percent of their pre-release salary, and the list goes on.



All things he's saying they've done. Has anyone seen any proof of it? 

Blowing smoke up everyone's ass since lying in the election.


----------



## brihard

Hehr is playing pretty desperate damage control on this, but without enough alacrity that anyone's really buying it. 

I've been saying from the start and will maintain that expecting a pension option restoration for budget 2016 was not realistic. But that would have been easy to articulate if they came out and said, simply, "yup, absolutely it's gotta happen and we're working on it. We could not do a proper job in our first four months of government; we will have a real proposal in time for next year's budget and will let the veterans community decide if we have it right for budget 2017." Instead they've stepped on their crank with golf shoes on and are badly on the defensive. All the same familiar chattering heads are turning on them, and it's a mess.


----------



## jollyjacktar

But not unexpected by me.  I fully expected all those veterans whom bought into the Ponzi scheme of ABC to bring the Lieberals into 24 Sussex, to find themselves with their hands held out expectantly with the repayment of zip, zero, zilch for joining in the pitchfork brigades that booted out the CPC and anointed the Golden people into their majority.   

"There's a sucker born every minute"- PT Barnum


----------



## The Bread Guy

Brihard said:
			
		

> ... that would have been easy to articulate if they came out and said, simply, "yup, absolutely it's gotta happen and we're working on it. We could not do a proper job in our first four months of government; we will have a real proposal in time for next year's budget and will let the veterans community decide if we have it right for budget 2017." ...


You know more about the inner machinations of talks & discussions, but from the outside looking in, they could only get away with saying that out loud if they _knew_ they could find the money needed - and I think the size of the bill will make any government of any party soil their silks.


----------



## brihard

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You know more about the inner machinations of talks & discussions, but from the outside looking in, they could only get away with saying that out loud if they _knew_ they could find the money needed - and I think the size of the bill will make any government of any party soil their silks.



Won't argue with you there... But they had to have at last napkined those numbers before making the promise; in coarse terms it would be easy to figure out "total NVA DAs, at an average of x%, = $y per month per pension act numbers". I have to think they at least did that much basic recce.


----------



## gryphonv

Brihard said:
			
		

> Won't argue with you there... But they had to have at last napkined those numbers before making the promise; in coarse terms it would be easy to figure out "total NVA DAs, at an average of x%, = $y per month per pension act numbers". I have to think they at least did that much basic recce.



But remember their 'napkined' numbers told our Supreme Leader that 'The Budget will balance itself'


----------



## PuckChaser

Well their first budget was triple what they said the deficit would be, I think the basic recce was no where close which is why they had to defer.


----------



## FSTO

I listened to Minister Hehr on CTV last night. Pure talking points and nothing else. He wouldn't even acknowledge the court case.

Nobody in the veteran community should be at all surprised about the Liberals 180.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Brihard said:
			
		

> Won't argue with you there... But they had to have at last napkined those numbers before making the promise; in coarse terms it would be easy to figure out "total NVA DAs, at an average of x%, = $y per month per pension act numbers". I have to think they at least did that much basic recce.


I'd like to think so, too, but I guess there also the possiblity that even the napkin figures scared the bejeezus out of them, too.


----------



## PuckChaser

Considering the relatively minor changes they made cost them $5B. I can see a sum 3-4 times that to return to proper lifetime pensions.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering the relatively minor changes they made cost them $5B. I can see a sum 3-4 times that to return to proper lifetime pensions.


And I saw somewhere here on the forums it might be 1/2 of your estimate, so we're talking, say, $7B to $20B -- that's not easy to chisel out of an already-packed spending list, no matter who's in the wheelhouse.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And I saw somewhere here on the forums it might be 1/2 of your estimate, so we're talking, say, $7B to $20B -- that's not easy to chisel out of an already-packed spending list, no matter who's in the wheelhouse.



Stop giving out 'climate change' money to third world governments and dictators. That'll leave more than enough money for veterans.

Let's start taking care of Canadians before we decide to send more money to backwaters that'll just buy landlocked yachts and patio lanterns with it.


----------



## jollyjacktar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Stop giving out 'climate change' money to third world governments and dictators. That'll leave more than enough money for veterans.
> 
> Let's start taking care of Canadians before we decide to send more money to backwaters that'll just buy landlocked yachts and patio lanterns with it.



How did you find out what I want to spend my lifetime pension money on?  Patio lanterns are the shit... ;D


----------



## the 48th regulator

recceguy said:
			
		

> Stop giving out 'climate change' money to third world governments and dictators. That'll leave more than enough money for veterans.
> 
> Let's start taking care of Canadians before we decide to send more money to backwaters that'll just buy landlocked yachts and patio lanterns with it.




BZ, Well Said Recceguy,

As much as we have a duty to support other nations, we need to stop the funding that has gone on for the last decade to some of these Tinpot Leaders, by our previous Regime!!

Again, well said.


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering the relatively minor changes they made cost them $5B. I can see a sum 3-4 times that to return to proper lifetime pensions.



Where are you getting this cost estimate from, and over what period of time? 

 I'm okay with figures from a napkin calculation for our purposes.


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Stop giving out 'climate change' money to third world governments and dictators. That'll leave more than enough money for veterans.


A start:  $2.65B over 5 years = *$500M/year* (mind you, that to ALL countries getting $, not just the bad boy countries).  That leaves another $6.5B - $19.5B/year left to chip away ...


----------



## Teager

This interview with Don Sorochan sums up what has happened in court to date. Also seems to be a war on words and there meaning. He explains why the Minister is now using the sacred obligation saying.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=895787


----------



## prairefire

I find it curious that the government would bring all recipients of Disability Awards from 2006 to current up to the same 2017 fiscal year adjusted dollar value. I am suspicious that there may be another agenda at play and not simple good will or generosity to veteran's. In a previous post I ran a comparison of Pension Act vs. Lump Sum Lifetime Comparison *(http://army.ca/forums/threads/121395.0.html)* I noted that the significant difference between Pension and DA in my case up to age 80 was over $500,000 dollars. Now this is just my case and I am at the lower end of the cost spectrum as my Pension kicked in my thirties and the DA in my fifties. _*( just  a note for the Mods the attachments  to the post that I referred to have disappeared, is that normal?)*_

I have heard from a policy analyst that there has been some discussion at DVA about finding a way to cap their liability if they lose the Equitas case. One course of action that is being explored would be using a similar calculation to mine to determine a life time value of a pension and then paying a lump sum equal to 70% or 80% of the value. The concept being that it limits the crown's liabilities and gives them a guaranteed number and also eliminates the 50% lifetime survivors pension. The hope is that while still expensive the number would appear to the public to be large enough to put the government in good graces with the general public and at the same time make veteran's look unappreciative and greedy.

Maybe this is just one of many options/contingencies being explored and I need a little more rum............................But I have my suspicions.!!! 

My source has been reliable over the years and has often provided me with accurate info on policy discussions and study papers that are not publicly released but can be found with some digging.

_- mod edit to fix formatting -_


----------



## prairefire

Sorry about the formatting of my last post. I am not sure how to fix it and would appreciate if one of the mods could fix it for me.

Thanks


----------



## RobA

Interesting. And plausible. I have no doubt if they lose Equitas, they're going to try to limit their exposure. With technology, who knows how long life expectancy will be 30-40-50+ years from now?

A buyout calculated at today's life expectancy and then adjusted to 70% would be expensive, but would save a lot of money in the long run while also being fair to vets (as long as you give them the pension option).

It will be expensive, but OTOH, don't send troops into war you can't pay for. And the lifetime cost of injured soldiers is absolutely included in the total cost of war.

Anybody know when Equitas is set to be decided?


----------



## Teager

All I've heard is after the summer recess judgements will be coming down.


----------



## brihard

The issue with deriving it from pensions and then dropping down is that really covers only the economic cost of disability (and fails to account for the lost career growth of someone disabled as a 22 year old Cpl). It does not take into account pain and suffering, which civilian disability awards do look at. They're arguing that an injured soldier should be treated equitably to an injured bank teller or power technician, who would see far more if hurt on the job.


----------



## blackberet17

Picking up on Brihard's last point, and I can't recall if someone else touched on this, but...

In most cases, not just the severely disabled veterans, the method of injury which rendered said soldier disabled is a tad different than the typical civilian method of injury.


----------



## upandatom

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Picking up on Brihard's last point, and I can't recall if someone else touched on this, but...
> 
> In most cases, not just the severely disabled veterans, the method of injury which rendered said soldier disabled is a tad different than the typical civilian method of injury.



Risk.....


----------



## brihard

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Picking up on Brihard's last point, and I can't recall if someone else touched on this, but...
> 
> In most cases, not just the severely disabled veterans, the method of injury which rendered said soldier disabled is a tad different than the typical civilian method of injury.




Yes... Though I would argue that that is not particularly pertinent it's the diagnosis and prognosis that mater, and those are objectively medical determinations.


----------



## Teager

> CALGARY – The lawyer for Canadian veterans involved in a legal battle with the federal government says the Department of Veterans Affairs is playing politics with his clients.
> 
> Don Sorochan said Thursday that Minister Kent Hehr is not standing by his party’s promise in the last election to re-establish lifelong pensions for veterans.
> 
> Hehr, who was in Calgary Thursday, said his government is moving forward as quickly as it can to do that.
> 
> READ MORE: Feds finalizing plan to house homeless veterans
> 
> The legal action was launched in B.C. Supreme Court in 2012 by six severely disabled veterans over changes made to their compensation six years earlier.
> 
> The federal government replaced lifelong pensions with lump-sum payments, upsetting veterans, who argued they deserved disability payments on par with workers’ compensation.
> 
> Efforts by the federal government to have the case thrown out were dismissed, which led to an appeal.



http://globalnews.ca/news/2917363/lawyer-for-veterans-says-liberals-not-living-up-to-election-promise/?sf34947077=1


----------



## cowboy628

So has anyone hearing a date for the case to be opens again, other than the end of summer holidays?


----------



## Lightguns

Teager said:
			
		

> http://globalnews.ca/news/2917363/lawyer-for-veterans-says-liberals-not-living-up-to-election-promise/?sf34947077=1



The thing the low info voters don't understand is that the government is always the same government regardless of which political sorority is voted to head the government.  Bureaucrats rule government, when they are not allowed too, they turn on government; leaks of embarrassing info, slow program development, strikes, and outright sabotage.  So the bureaucrats don't support the vets as a policy.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> So the bureaucrats don't support the vets as a policy.


Which is why it's up to the politicians to make the decision to spend the money needed to get bureaucrats to do what the politicians think is right.  Yeah, I know about "Yes, Minister" ways to slow things down, but if the elected body politic decided to spend what's needed on vets, it would happen.  Methinks government of ANY stripe is worried about this because of the massive *$* it could cost, money that couldn't be spent on other proimses.

I understand this government seems sincere in seeking input from those in the know about how the system should change (and wouldn't mind hearing from anyone more in the know if there's anything new to share on this front), but when it comes time to govern and decide, we'll see what the priority is.


----------



## Wookilar

Morally, I think it stinks. But I may be biased  [

However, fiduciary-ily speaking, as the government of the day, I don't think they really have a choice. If this goes through, it is going to cost the country $billions over time for a relatively small portion of the populace. As Lightguns says above, the exec level runs the show and this may be being done just to appease a very influential group who's main priority is protecting the public purse from anything they do not "value."

How the rest of the country values the contributions of vets, as a group, is key here. If enough people actually complained about the resistance to the lawsuit, it might be dropped, but I am going to guess that not many Joe and Jane Canuck either: a) know about it; or b) care about it. Most people are far more worried about the price of bread and gas than they are about some Army guy (who they feel bad for) getting only $75,000 lump sum instead of a monthly pension.


----------



## Teager

The Equitas Society had a fund raising dinner the other night and did very well.

For those without Facebook this comes from Aaron Bedard who is a plaintiff with what sounds like good news to come.



> Results of the Equitas Fundraiser is we've made another $10k at last nights dinner on top of the $1k I raised with tshirts on 11.11. This has been an excellent 11.11. I'm not hung over. I'm not out of control in any way. Wife's coming back from visiting moms and dinners cookin. We can now start getting excited about Christmas and winter pursuits and hobbies.
> I just got some major important news from our lawyer Don that felt like a mountain lifted off my head. I'll announce it as soon as I'm allowed.


----------



## brihard

Aaron's been a friend of mine for a bit over a year now. He really gives everything he's got to this, and I can't believe the tenacity he shows.

He announced today that Don Sorokin, the lead counsel, will be staying with this one case, despite retirement. They have also added a new lawyer to the team, one Andrew Hentz, recently called to the bar, previously an RCR officer with two Kandahar tours. Someone who gets it.

Last I talked with Aaron, they expect a ruling soon that will allow the case to go to trial. Still a long haul ahead, but the team is staying strong.


----------



## Teager

Thought I would put this here for those that don't have Facebook this comes from the Equitas FB page.



> Re: O'Toole unveils vets platform, breaks from Harper policy on pension lawsuit/question
> The Agreement provided that the federal government would drop their appeal, specifically it stated:
> (a)The Defendant will, with the consent of the Plaintiffs/Respondents, abandon the appeal in Court of Appeal File No: CA041232 on a without costs basis or, if necessary, seek leave to abandon the appeal with the consent of the Plaintiffs without costs to any Party;
> However, the Abeyance Agreement did not require us to drop the litigation. When advised of the "appeal abandonment" provision in the Abeyance Agreement, the Court of Appeal was of the view that if the litigation were to continue before the trial court after the abeyance period expired (on May 15, 2016) the constitutional issues argued before the court would have to be decided in that court proceeding anyway. In these circumstances (where there was no settlement of the whole action) it made more sense for the Court of Appeal to render its decision on those constitutional issues. .
> It should be remembered that, based upon the conciliatory approach adopted by Minister O'Toole and the statements in Parliament by senior representatives of all parties, it was reasonably anticipated that the entire lawsuit could be resolved.
> The Court of Appeal's refusal to permit the abandonment of the appeal by the Federal Government should not be interpreted as an endorsement of what the present Minister has done when his counsel invited the Court of Appeal to render judgment on the basis of the "Fantino Position" as argued in December of 2014 without advising the Court of the changed positions of the Government and Parliament as reflected in amendments to the legislation, the "Social Covenant" resolution of Parliament and the positions of all political parties as stated in Parliament and during the election campaign.
> DONALD J. SOROCHAN, Q.C.
> Counsel
> Miller Thomson LLP
> Robson Court, 1000-840 Howe Street
> Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2M1
> Direct Line: +1 604.643.1214
> Cell: +1 604.488.4731
> Fax: +1 604.643.1200
> Email: dsorochan@millerthomson.com
> millerthomson.com


----------



## Rifleman62

> Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-forgive-student-loans-again-1.3982728



> For the second year in a row the federal government is writing off millions in student loans it will never collect, this time to the tune of $178.4 million.
> 
> The money represents 32,554 loans that federal officials believe they will never be able to collect, either because a debtor may have filed for bankruptcy, the debt itself has passed a six-year legal limit on collection, or the _debtor can't be found_.
> 
> Last year, the government wrote off 33,967 loans totalling $176 million.



Meanwhile, over at VAC sloooowly fighting tooth and nail each file ..................


----------



## cowboy628

So is the class action still on going? Haven't seen an update or even a comment!

cowboy628


----------



## Teager

They are still waiting on the Judges decision. Until then nothing can move forward. Here is an interview that was recently done with the President of Equitas society and the Veterans lawyer Don Sorochan.

https://omny.fm/shows/the-jon-mccomb-show/veteran-advocacy-group-not-happy-with-federal-budg#sharing

Also check out the Equitas website it has been updated.

http://www.equitassociety.ca


----------



## cowboy628

Thx. It was thought a decision you come early in the new year. Guess that was a little optimistic.
cowboy628


----------



## Rifleman62

Don't know if the Equitas Society sponsored or endorsed this event or not. Anyone know the status of the Equitas Society action?

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/veterans-group-suing-government-over-pension-promise-1.3633478

*Veterans group suing government over pension promise* - CTV Vancouver - October 15, 2017

Dozens of injured veterans and their supporters gathered in Burnaby’s Central Park on Sunday to raise money for their ongoing legal battle with the federal government.

The event - Equitas Society’s first-ever Walk for Veterans - aims to defray the cost of the society’s class-action lawsuit, which seeks to reinstate lifetime pensions for veterans injured in the line of duty.

In 2005, the federal government replaced the pension plan for injured soldiers with a lump sum payment worth a maximum of $360,000 - an amount Equitas Society president Mark Burchell says isn’t enough for people who risked their lives for their country.

“It’s substantially lower than what the pension act offered,” Burchell said of the current system. “Prime Minister Trudeau, when he was running for election in 2015, promised to reinstate lifelong pensions and he hasn’t kept that promise, so we’re here to send him a message.”

Aaron Bedard was among those walking on Sunday. He was injured in Kandahar, Afghanistan in 2006, during one of Canada’s earliest missions in the country.
He told CTV News he sustained brain and spine injuries during his tour, and has spent the better part of a decade going to medical assessments and filling out government forms in order to obtain compensation.

“Veterans Affairs Canada and Department of National Defence didn’t do a great job of managing my issues and giving me a proper treatment plan,” Bedard said. “I need to see better security - lifelong security in the form of a pension.”

The Trudeau government has said that it will soon introduce a new pension “option” soon. Veterans Affairs didn’t respond to requests for comment on Sunday.
Conservative MP John Brassard, who recently served as his party’s critic for veterans affairs, said the Trudeau government has not kept its promise on pensions.

“They’re now changing their tune,” he said. “They’re talking about an option of a lifelong pension and nobody really knows what that means. The Prime Minister made it very clear he was going to return life long pensions and he hasn’t done that at this point.”

_With files from CTV Vancouver’s Scott Roberts_


https://www.bclocalnews.com/news/video-canadian-veterans-fight-to-reinstate-lifelong-pensions/
*
VIDEO: Canadian veterans fight to reinstate lifelong pensions* - Oct 15th, 2017 
_The battle has gone all the way to the to the Supreme Court_ (of British Columbia)

Burnaby’s Central Park was packed with people on Sunday morning, all there with one goal: to bring back lifelong pensions for veterans.

The event, the inaugural Walk for Veterans, was hosted by the Equitas Society.

Since its formation in 2012, the South Surrey-White Rock based group has been advocating for the cause through a class-action lawsuit against the federal government.

The Pension Act, which guarantto the Supreme Courteed lifelong pensions for veterans, was replaced by the New Veterans Charter in 2006.

“It replaced [lifelong pensions] with lump sum payments that ended up being disproportionally lower,” said president Marc Burchell.

Burchell said that although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a pledge to reinstate the lifelong pensions, the lack of action has left veterans feeling betrayed.

“He has failed to keep that promise,” said Burchell.

Currently, the Canadian government is fighting the lawsuit in the B.C. Supreme Court of Appeals. If it fails to get the result it wants, it must take it to the country’s top court.

The lawsuit has six plaintiffs, including Coquitlam veteran Aaron Bedard.

Bedard served in Afghanistan as part of the first combat tour of Kandahar. He served for 10 years, from 2002-2010, despite a serious injury from going over an anti-tank mine just three months in.

“I hid my injuries and carried on with a traumatic brain injury and damage to my spine,” said Bedard. He returned to Canada in 2007 and was went to doctor to doctor, but received little help.

“I started developing post-traumatic stress disorder.”

It took three years before he was released from service but according to Bedard, much of the fight remained ahead.

“Dealing with Veterans Affairs Canada was immediately adversarial,” said Bedard. He learned that he would only be getting a lump sum, which in 2010 was only $250,000.

It’s a common thread, said Burchell, that’s not helped by what he calls Veteran Affairs’ “culture of denial.”

“These men and women come back from Afghanistan and a lot of them are suffering from PTSD,” said Burchell. “They’ve been fighting [for pensions] but it’s hard for the to fight when they’re suffering from this disability.”

To learn more about the Equitas Society, visit their website: http://www.equitassociety.ca/


----------



## brihard

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Don't know if the Equitas Society sponsored or endorsed this event or not. Anyone know the status of the Equitas Society action?



I know Aaron Bedard and Brian McKenna pretty well and talk with them semi regularly. This was an official Equitas event.

Right now they're still awaiting what is fast becoming a long overdue decision in BC court. The decision was expected many months ago, and will determine whether the matter can go to trial or not. They are expecting a favourable decision, but obviously anything can happen in court. There's still a long road ahead of them.


----------



## cowboy628

Well PM just spent another 31.5 mil. Who ever is in charge of the court action better get there as- in gear before the Libs spend it all. ☹️


----------



## brihard

BC Court of Appeal announced today that their decision will be issued Monday December 4th. My understanding from Aaron is that this will be the decision that decides if the matter can go to trial or not.

Not done by a long shot, but this decision will be an important one. Separately, a fed gov announcement on the disability pension restoration is ‘imminent’, so I predict we have an interesting week coming.


----------



## cowboy628

So who will get the news out first, Libs or BC Court. What 1100hrs in BC is what In Ottawa 1400hrs.😀


----------



## cowboy628

Hey guys has anyone heard the Decision yet. Or is it still to early.


----------



## Strike

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/court-rules-against-injured-vets-in-fight-for-pensions-1.3706344

Court ruled against the vets.


----------



## jollyjacktar

That is a shame but not surprising to read for me.  Promises are made in the heat of campaigning for office that those who make them have little or no intention of honouring once they get your vote.


----------



## Journeyman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Promises are made in the heat of campaigning for office that those who make them have little or no intention of honouring once they get your vote.


Reinstating the lifelong pensions was part of the Liberal party platform, rather than any individuals making rash promises.  Rather than this being yet another issue "not being pursued," it appears that they've actively been fighting against making the change since being elected.


----------



## dapaterson

I somehow suspect that Walt, John & Jody are expending considerable effort on this behind the scenes.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I don't believe there was any intention to make changes once the votes were cast.  Played the Veterans like a violin.  The Liberals are the architects of the NVC, no way they'd undo their creation.


----------



## TCM621

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't believe there was any intention to make changes once the votes were cast.  Played the Veterans like a violin.  The Liberals are the architects of the NVC, no way they'd undo their creation.



They would if it was politically expedient to do so. No Liberal value or policy is too entrenched to get changed to stay in power. The fact is that they can do why ever they want to veterans as long as they blind the masses with virtue signalling and weed.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Look on the bright side.  Between the Khadr payout, ISIS terrorists being rehabilitated through poetry and now this, the liberal promises next election are going to quite entertaining.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:rofl:


----------



## Cloud Cover

I don't think the door is completely shut on this, the court has offered a way forward. And they certainly took a shot at the loose mouth of a PM 100 years ago:

"The idea that inspirational statements by a prime minister containing vague assurances could bind the government of Canada to a specific legislative regime in perpetuity does not, in any way, conform with the country's constitutional norms," Groberman wrote.
The judgment also dismissed the arguments put forward that the government had violated the veterans' charter rights, though Groberman did leave the Equitas members with one possible course of action.
"While the benefits conferred under the New Veterans Charter cannot be characterized as deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person," Groberman wrote, "_we wondered whether the plaintiffs might wish to argue that their injuries, which were caused in their service to Canada, should be so characterized_."

So the benefits argument door has been closed (subject to leave being granted to appeal by the SCC). However, is this court seriously suggesting that putting soldiers in harms way with a foreseeable risk of harm for every soldier/sailor/airman injured might be a violation of the _Charter_.  Sounds like a policy nightmare and I really hope there is further appeal so the SCC reviews this and cleans up the mess because the Liberals clearly will not.


----------



## PuckChaser

I skimmed through the decision, one thing that really jumped out at me was this line:



> [5]             The notice of civil claim in this matter is an interesting document, containing considerable detail on the history of Canada’s armed forces, and the evolution of programs to compensate military personnel for injuries. It also outlines the personal histories of the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, it is prolix, and contains a good deal of rhetorical excess. Contrary to the formal requirements of a notice of civil claim, it mixes allegations of fact with the legal bases for the claim and with the relief sought. It is difficult, on reading the claim, to determine which of the myriad facts pleaded are to be treated as material, and how the facts relate to legally-based claims.



http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/17/04/2017BCCA0422.htm

The term "baffle them with bullshit" comes to mind, and perhaps we did not have the best lawyers or representative plantiffs in the lead on this one. One of the plantiffs runs "Veterans Guerilla Radio" podcast, and his posts on Facebook are incoherent ramblings. It doesn't surprise me that we lost if that was line 5 in the decision.


----------



## brihard

I read the decision in its entirety... Not looking good for the plaintiffs unfortunately. For the claim to be dismissed in its entirety like this means that the top court in B.C. thinks they have absolutely no actionable claim with any merits, even supposing that the facts asserted are completely true. The court today completely dismissed the notion that any of the legal obligations that the plaintiffs assert the crown bears are valid.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Hearing rumblings online now about veterans groups actively trying to dissuade people from joining the CAF. 

Not sure what course this will take, if any, but if the Vets walk the same as they talk we could be in for a bombastic and dramatic time until election 2019.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Hopefully they'll only be fooled once by JT and gang.


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hopefully they'll only be fooled once by JT and gang.



I'm not sure any party out there is guilt free on this one old buddy.  My blood runs blue, but that team FUBAR'd this just as badly.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure any party out there is guilt free on this one old buddy.  My blood runs blue, but that team FUBAR'd this just as badly.



Yes, true, they're both dicks but they really bought into the Team Red dream this last election and pushed the ABC agenda.


----------



## dapaterson

Interestingly, the judge included a para that essentially states "Here's how to pursue this in the courts"...


----------



## Halifax Tar

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, true, they're both dicks but they really bought into the Team Red dream this last election and pushed the ABC agenda.



Agreed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interestingly, the judge included a para that essentially states "Here's how to pursue this in the courts"...



I don't think this is over.  I am no legal eagle but I think the nest step is the SCC, no ?


----------



## Jarnhamar

> In the last election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals appealed to aggrieved veterans with a promise to "re-establish lifelong pensions as an option" as well as increase the value of compensation for an injury.



Just because we haven't heard  the Prime Ministers reaction to this Court decision and subsequent affirmation that the Liberals will make good on their campaign promise yet doesn't mean its not coming. Let's have some faith. I'm sure our MND will chime in too, he's one of us after all right?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interestingly, the judge included a para that essentially states "Here's how to pursue this in the courts"...



Saw that too at para [91]. An interesting argument to be made there in my view. I read it as consequence of the judge's personal views expressed at para [16], which is as close to rebuke as a judge will dare give politicians in matters of policy that belong to Parliament.

I have dealt in my past with civil law aspects/consequences of breach, by non government actors, of international treaties dealing with the laws of war to which Canada was both a signatory and internalized the law in our legislation. For those type of claims, you can really expand on what the courts will agree to look at, or not but after a full hearing generally.


----------



## brihard

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Just because we haven't heard  the Prime Ministers reaction to this Court decision and subsequent affirmation that the Liberals will make good on their campaign promise yet doesn't mean its not coming. Let's have some faith. I'm sure our MND will chime in too, he's one of us after all right?



The Minister of Veterans Affairs releases a pretty bland statement today, but noticeably it promises that the ‘pension option’ will be finalized by the end of this year. My guess is we see legislation tabled just before the holiday recess, and that that bill along with C-42 get fast tracked in the winter/spring sitting for budget 2018.


----------



## cowboy628

Well I’m hearing pickets around recruiting offices.


----------



## FJAG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I don't think this is over.  I am no legal eagle but I think the nest step is the SCC, no ?



A civil action will only be heard by the SCC if leave to appeal is granted by the SCC. This from the court's FAQ:



> (the court's) mandate is to deal with issues of law which are
> - of public importance, or
> - of such a nature or significance as to a warrant decision by the Court.It is not enough for you to think the Court of Appeal is wrong to have your case heard by the Supreme Court.  Matters that the Court hears generally transcend the interests of the immediate parties and do not turn only on the facts of the case.  For example, in many of the cases that come before it, the Court must determine the legal meaning of a provision of a statute, and its decision is likely to have an impact on society as a whole.
> . . .
> Of the approximately 600 leave applications submitted each year, only about 80 are granted.  The possibility of succeeding in getting an appeal heard is in general remote.  Each application for leave to appeal is considered carefully by the Court.  The Court never gives reasons for its decisions.  It is important to remember that the Court's role is not to correct errors that may have been made in the courts below.



I won't comment on the quality of the plaintiff's pleadings in this matter as I haven't seen them but I can certainly read between the lines and it would appear that the lawyer put in everything but the kitchen sink. Drafting a good claim (or notice of claim) is a bit of an art form. The following are the requirements that come from the Manitoba Queen's Bench:



> Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for a claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.
> 
> A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.
> 
> Where a party's claim or defence is founded on an Act or Regulation, the specific sections relied on shall be pleaded.



It is absolutely critical to plead accurately and concisely. In effect, in a motion for summary judgement (like this one) the court assumes that the material facts pleaded are true and then determines whether the state of the law is such that the plaintiffs' might succeed. If so the case goes on to trial where the plaintiff must prove that, in fact, the material facts are true and convince the court that the state of the law leads to the conclusion that they seek.

When one pleads a new novel legal principle one usually faces an uphill climb because you can't point at settled law. You have to convince a court that an existing principle of law can and should be expanded. This does happen from time to time. (For example the tort of negligence didn't exist as a legal principle before 1932 when the UK House of Lords held that a duty of care extended to anyone reasonably foreseeable of being damaged by the defendants actions or inactions and not just those in contractual relationships with them--a major jump in the law at the time.)

There clearly is a unique relationship between the crown and its military members that does not exist with any other citizen. It's hard to prove that there is a duty of a certain level of compensation or care though especially when you consider how poorly the crown used to treat its soldiers and sailors before the twentieth century. The strides forward that were made during and since WW1 were all legislative. The trouble with legislation is that it can be legally changed for the worse as well as the better by the government in power. I don't give the court route much chance of success. I think this needs a major public affairs campaign to shame the government into taking action. 

Quite frankly while the dollar numbers are very substantial to the individual members, they are peanuts for the government. The changes in 2006 were bean counting at it's worst--it was a way of duplicating/simulating civilian insurance schemes based on lump sum settlements/payouts that allowed the insurers to wash their hands of responsibility after the payout. In the legal trade we used to disparagingly call those compensation tables "the meat chart". (incidentally, IMHO, the same abacus clicker mentality was involved in the reserve pension scheme)

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

When the judgement includes the term "prolix", it's not a rousing endorsement of counsel.


----------



## JesseWZ

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hearing rumblings online now about veterans groups actively trying to dissuade people from joining the CAF.
> 
> Not sure what course this will take, if any, but if the Vets walk the same as they talk we could be in for a bombastic and dramatic time until election 2019.



I respectfully disagree. The average Canadian may not actually *know* any vets *or* serving members for that matter. Even if Vets are loud and proud, I don't think Vets issues will sway an election/popular opinion. The demographic is pretty small per capita and many (most?) are already vehemently anti JT/Liberal.


----------



## ModlrMike

The only type of life long pension we're going to see is an option to take the current award over time versus lump sum. There will be no change to the amounts. The reduction in the government's cost of life long pensions was the core issue in the development of the NVC. It wasn't about making it better for veterans, it was about making it cheaper for government. There will be no turning back the clock here.


----------



## brihard

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The only type of life long pension we're going to see is an option to take the current award over time versus lump sum. There will be no change to the amounts. The reduction in the government's cost of life long pensions was the core issue in the development of the NVC. It wasn't about making it better for veterans, it was about making it cheaper for government. There will be no turning back the clock here.



The existing lump sum can already be spread over time, so it will necessarily be something different from that.


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hearing rumblings online now about veterans groups actively trying to dissuade people from joining the CAF.





			
				cowboy628 said:
			
		

> Well I’m hearing pickets around recruiting offices.



This pisses me right the f*** off. Yes, I believe the government has an obligation to support injured soldiers, and I hope we return to life long pensions, should it not bankrupt the government. However, I signed up to serve in uniform because I believe in standing up for Canadian values and providing a layer of protection to Canadian citizens. I did this regardless of the benefits, and I'd keep doing it even if our benefits were greatly reduced. 

Trying to dissuade others from joining the CAF, IMO, does nothing but damage the security of our country. Take up your issues at the polls.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Brihard said:
			
		

> The Minister of Veterans Affairs releases a pretty bland statement today, but noticeably it promises that the ‘pension option’ will be finalized by the end of this year. My guess is we see legislation tabled just before the holiday recess, and that that bill along with C-42 get fast tracked in the winter/spring sitting for budget 2018.



I expect a little pay increase right before election time to make us all forget about this (and I already spent mine  )




			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> This pisses me right the f*** off.





> Trying to dissuade others from joining the CAF, IMO, does nothing but damage the security of our country. Take your up your issues at the polls.



100%. Selfish. 
We have enough problems recruiting and training others to pass the torch to, we don't need this.


----------



## meni0n

I got 5$ on that they will raise the maximum payout again right before elections.


----------



## Strike

Well, if it makes anyone feel better, not only are they going after disabled vets, but people with Type 1 diabetes and victims of Thalidomide.  So that's three separate organizations affecting three different groups that all have the "disability" label in common.

Just sayin'...


----------



## Lumber

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 100%. Selfish.
> We have enough problems recruiting and training others to pass the torch to, we don't need this.



You were agreeing with me, right? Not calling _me _selfish?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Those comments by Minister Hehr were shocking. Wtf is wrong with some of these guys?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:
			
		

> You were agreeing with me, right? Not calling _me _selfish?


I was agreeing with you yes. I think you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Kat Stevens

At the risk of getting another yellow card, I just gotta say this.  While as a starry eyed 17 year old I did not join the army with much thought toward benefits and payouts. I wanted to go around the world and get into punch ups with bad people and break their toys. However, I did expect that, should the horrible of horrible happen, my willingness to get roughed up on my country’s behalf should be worth something. I was always told loyalty goes up AND down. Clearly that is not the case. With the current situation, I would dissuade any young family member of mine from following my example. But I’m just a dumb lifer corporal, what do I know?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The only type of life long pension we're going to see is an option to take the current award over time versus lump sum. There will be no change to the amounts. The reduction in the government's cost of life long pensions was the core issue in the development of the NVC. It wasn't about making it better for veterans, it was about making it cheaper for government. There will be no turning back the clock here.


Pretty difinitive statement opinion. Do you work for the MoVAC? Part of the drafting team? Not that I disagree. Just wondering where you got the inside scoop.


----------



## ModlrMike

recceguy said:
			
		

> Pretty difinitive statement opinion. Do you work for the MoVAC? Part of the drafting team? Not that I disagree. Just wondering where you got the inside scoop.



Call it experiential pessimism.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Lumber said:
			
		

> You were agreeing with me, right? Not calling _me _selfish?



Whether or not you join is a personal decision. The same as anything this important, you should get the whole story. The fancy commercials put out by DND and the government's rousing statements should not be the sum of your investigation. If you seek out a Veteran and ask their opinion, if it doesn't match the government's pitch, that's a decision that the investigator will have to weigh as part of their choice. If that Veteran decides to tell the truth, that he served honourably, got injured and tossed to the curb by said government, then the person gets the bad also. 

The other option, have the Veteran lie and tow the party line, in the interest of deceiving the applicant. You'll only end up with another generation of disgruntled service people, that feel the government deceived them.

What better than the truth. "We are going to send you to fight terrorists that threaten our country and our way of life. We want you to be professional about it and try not offend your enemy. Even so, some of you will be wounded or killed. No matter, when you get back and are injured, we'll make you sue us to get what you deserve. We have no sacred obligation to those of you silly enough to believe what we promise. We're politicians. As a matter of fact, those guys that killed your buddies and wrecked your life? We're going to bring them here, give them all kinds of free money, support, succor and teach them poetry. That way they won't keep trying to kill you and families..............we hope. If you don't agree, you're an islamaphobe."

Or do you help, possibly ruining someone's life, by lying to them about the truth of what's happening, to keep your recruiting numbers up?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Call it experiential pessimism.



Can we do that again then? Express our opinion for fact. I've been around a long time also. I have plenty of pessimism.  :rofl:


----------



## Halifax Tar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Whether or not you join is a personal decision. The same as anything this important, you should get the whole story. The fancy commercials put out by DND and the government's rousing statements should not be the sum of your investigation. If you seek out a Veteran and ask their opinion, if it doesn't match the government's pitch, that's a decision that the investigator will have to weigh as part of their choice. If that Veteran decides to tell the truth, that he served honourably, got injured and tossed to the curb by said government, then the person gets the bad also.
> 
> The other option, have the Veteran lie and tow the party line, in the interest of deceiving the applicant. You'll only end up with another generation of disgruntled service people, that feel the government deceived them.
> 
> What better than the truth. "We are going to send you to fight terrorists that threaten our country and our way of life. We want you to be professional about it and try not offend your enemy. Even so, some of you will be wounded or killed. No matter, when you get back and are injured, we'll make you sue us to get what you deserve. We have no sacred obligation to those of you silly enough to believe what we promise. We're politicians. As a matter of fact, those guys that killed your buddies and wrecked your life? We're going to bring them here, give them all kinds of free money, support, succor and teach them poetry. That way they won't keep trying to kill you and families..............we hope. If you don't agree, you're an islamaphobe."
> 
> Or do you help, possibly ruining someone's life, by lying to them about the truth of what's happening, to keep your recruiting numbers up?



Excellent post. 

Honestly I am not sure I would be comfortable with a recruitment tasking where I was going to encourage people to join this organization. I am a terrible liar.


----------



## NavyShooter

recceguy said:
			
		

> Whether or not you join is a personal decision. The same as anything this important, you should get the whole story. The fancy commercials put out by DND and the government's rousing statements should not be the sum of your investigation. If you seek out a Veteran and ask their opinion, if it doesn't match the government's pitch, that's a decision that the investigator will have to weigh as part of their choice. If that Veteran decides to tell the truth, that he served honourably, got injured and tossed to the curb by said government, then the person gets the bad also.
> 
> The other option, have the Veteran lie and tow the party line, in the interest of deceiving the applicant. You'll only end up with another generation of disgruntled service people, that feel the government deceived them.
> 
> What better than the truth. "We are going to send you to fight terrorists that threaten our country and our way of life. We want you to be professional about it and try not offend your enemy. Even so, some of you will be wounded or killed. No matter, when you get back and are injured, we'll make you sue us to get what you deserve. We have no sacred obligation to those of you silly enough to believe what we promise. We're politicians. As a matter of fact, those guys that killed your buddies and wrecked your life? We're going to bring them here, give them all kinds of free money, support, succor and teach them poetry. That way they won't keep trying to kill you and families..............we hope. If you don't agree, you're an islamaphobe."
> 
> Or do you help, possibly ruining someone's life, by lying to them about the truth of what's happening, to keep your recruiting numbers up?



I'm with Halifax Tar.  

I am getting more and more jaded in my life experiences.  This year has been a tough one for that.  I've had numerous opportunities to learn about "Institutional Leadership" and I'm not terribly thrilled with what I've seen.

Putting me in any sort of recruiting role right now would be...insightful...for the potential applicants.

NS


----------



## Jarnhamar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm with Halifax Tar.
> 
> I am getting more and more jaded in my life experiences.  This year has been a tough one for that.  I've had numerous opportunities to learn about "Institutional Leadership" and I'm not terribly thrilled with what I've seen.
> 
> Putting me in any sort of recruiting role right now would be...insightful...for the potential applicants.
> 
> NS


I was thinking about this a lot after I posted. 

I'm definitely in that boat. There's a large number issues that have caused me to lose faith in the system. The culminating point for me was reading we're letting terrorists back into Canada, not charging them. (I feel absolutely betrayed) 

I'd be very honest about my views (like telling someone to get college before joining and how the family first is bukkshit) but in the context of this thread I wouldn't actively all of a sudden protest a recruiting office because I didn't get my money the liberals promised.  If that makes sense.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I was thinking about this a lot after I posted.
> 
> I'm definitely in that boat. There's a large number issues that have caused me to lose faith in the system. The culminating point for me was reading we're letting terrorists back into Canada, not charging them. (I feel absolutely betrayed)
> 
> I'd be very honest about my views (like telling someone to get college before joining and how the family first is bukkshit) but in the context of this thread I wouldn't actively all of a sudden protest a recruiting office because I didn't get my money the liberals promised.  If that makes sense.



I think you make sense and we are in agreement in all facets.


----------



## Pusser

I think folks need to do a bit more reading on this line about letting terrorists back into the country, not charging them and teaching them poetry instead.  The articles I've been reading have pointed out that being a member of a terrorist organization is not in and of itself a crime, notwithstanding that providing support to it is.  Furthermore, the government has not said that returning "terrorists" will not be held accountable.  People returning to Canada who are suspected of having committed criminal/terrorist acts can still be charged.  Holding people accountable (i.e. charging and possibly punishing them) and rehabilitating them are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Don't tell me that you seriously believe anything meaningful or lasting will be done with these terrorists.  I have absolutely zero faith that this government will handle this any better than say the Phoenix Pay System or Long Gun Registry.  "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" tripe from the PM doesn't inspire any faith in me.  Count me out as a believer.  Hell, even Goodale admits he has no clue where all these POS are.  This will all end in tears and not for the terrorists, I am sure.  Kum ba yah, my ass.


----------



## captloadie

My question would be is do we apply the same logic to all individuals who leave Canada to fight under a different flag. If we have individuals fighting for the Kurds, or the Iraqi's, or the Syrians, should we also charge them? Ack, we all agree ISIL are bad. I think we can all agree that the Syrian regime isn't following what we would find acceptable western values. What if we find that certain Kurdish freedom fighters are really warlords seeking wealth instead of a nation state. Are Canadians fighting for/with those groups now lumped in as terrorists?
/end tangent


----------



## jollyjacktar

Would any of these new people be "Little Johnny Jihad's" wanting to do what Daesh aspire to do in the West, once they came marching home again?  If yes, then they should be hammered flat too, if not, I'm not as concerned.  Personally speaking.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Pusser said:
			
		

> I think folks need to do a bit more reading on this line about letting terrorists back into the country, not charging them and teaching them poetry instead.  The articles I've been reading have pointed out that being a member of a terrorist organization is not in and of itself a crime, notwithstanding that providing support to it is.





> *Participation in activity of terrorist group*
> 83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
> Prosecution
> (2) An offence may be committed under subsection (1) whether or not
> 
> (a) a terrorist group actually facilitates or carries out a terrorist activity;
> (b) the participation or contribution of the accused actually enhances the ability of a terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity; or
> (c) the accused knows the specific nature of any terrorist activity that may be facilitated or carried out by a terrorist group.
> 
> ...
> 2001, c. 41, s. 4.





> *Leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group*
> 83.181 Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada, or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.18(1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
> 2013, c. 9, s. 6.



Out of the estimated 200+ Canadians who returned from fighting with ISIS how many have been charged and convicted of the above offenses?  To me joining a terrorist group sounds like participating in a terrorist activity.




> Furthermore, the government has not said that returning "terrorists" will not be held accountable.  People returning to Canada who are suspected of having committed criminal/terrorist acts can still be charged.


  

Maybe it's just me but there doesn't feel to be a big push by the government to prosecute any of them.


(That's going off but would add severe insult to injury if I was a wounded vet)


----------



## Lumber

recceguy said:
			
		

> Or do you help, possibly ruining someone's life, by lying to them about the truth of what's happening, to keep your recruiting numbers up?



Who said anything about lying? Tell them the truth. It's a caveat to joining, not an argument for _not_ joining. 

"If you're going to join up to serve your country, just remember they don't have your back in all circumstances. Here's a list of the way the government is failing our soldiers, sailors, and aviators."

Sounds a lot better than:

"Don't join! You'll get tons of pay and benefits, but if you're injured they'll screw you hard." 

As far as I'm concerned, the first guy they convince to turn away or withdraw their application is the next lookout who would'be spotted the next MV Crystal. All shots you don't take, miss.

Actually, I'm probably going to regret saying this, but are our vets getting screwed hard? To be fair, I've never been injured, and never had to deal with VAC, but at least we have benefits, don't we? Life pensions would be better, but we do have pensions. They are more than enough for most people, are they not? Yes, there are example where the maximum penalty is not enough, but is that the majority case, or the minority case? 

Would: 

"Don't join! You'll get tons of pay and benefits, and great pensions, including if you're injured, but there is a small chance that depending on your injury, you could find yourself in a situation where your government compensation doesn't satisfy the financial burden caused by your specific injury."

Be more accurate?

Again, I'm more curious for enlightment than making a claim here.

I'm going to regret this...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber, l used to actively try and bring young folks into the Navy, my pre-amalgamation trade in particular.

I don't anymore.  Why don't l, you might ask?  Because it wouldn't be ethical as l don't believe in the direction we're going.  I do not, cannot, and won't sing the praises of this amalgamation that was forced on us.

I'm thankful l don't have subordinates here as l couldn't try and sell them on it.  Not that that's a worry as they're seeing it for what it is and voting with their feet in many cases.  We're bleeding out so fast l don't think quick clot would help.  Legacy HT releases are 3 x the norm and accelerating.

What do l tell young kids now? Go Air Force.


----------



## Teager

Lumber the benefits sound good the problem is getting access to them. A lot of vets not just a few have to fight tooth and nail to get what's owed to them. It can take years to get access to benefits and in the meantime time you could be losing your house and your family could be falling apart due to financial stress and health issues of yours that may not get timely treatment to address. It's a meat grinder of a system so get through easily but a lot do not.


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Lumber, l used to actively try and bring young folks into the Navy, my pre-amalgamation trade in particular.
> 
> I don't anymore.  Why don't l, you might ask?  Because it wouldn't be ethical as l don't believe in the direction we're going.  I do not, cannot, and won't sing the praises of this amalgamation that was forced on us.
> 
> I'm thankful l don't have subordinates here as l couldn't try and sell them on it.  Not that that's a worry as they're seeing it for what it is and voting with their feet in many cases.  We're bleeding out so fast l don't think quick clot would help.  Legacy HT releases are 3 x the norm and accelerating.
> 
> What do l tell young kids now? Go Air Force.



Air Force is always a good route, but why discorage them from joining the Navy all together? What about the other trades? If a young friend of your's or your familie's was to ask you what you thought about going W End or NWO, would you say "no way"?


----------



## Lumber

Teager said:
			
		

> Lumber the benefits sound good the problem is getting access to them. A lot of vets not just a few have to fight tooth and nail to get what's owed to them. It can take years to get access to benefits and in the meantime time you could be losing your house and your family could be falling apart due to financial stress and health issues of yours that may not get timely treatment to address. It's a meat grinder of a system so get through easily but a lot do not.



Good point, thank you. I neglected this group from my view and focused solely on those at the far _far_ end of the problem. 

Nonetheless, I still don't see this as a reason to discourage people from joining the forces.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Air Force is always a good route, but why discorage them from joining the Navy all together? What about the other trades? If a young friend of your's or your familie's was to ask you what you thought about going W End or NWO, would you say "no way"?


Yes, yes l would.  I think we've lost the plot.


----------



## NavyShooter

Lumber said:
			
		

> Air Force is always a good route, but why discorage them from joining the Navy all together? What about the other trades? If a young friend of your's or your familie's was to ask you what you thought about going W End or NWO, would you say "no way"?



Lumber,

I have, in the past, actively helped people join.  My wife's second cousin twice (or is it three times?) removed sat in m kitchen with me for two hours the day before he went to the recruiting center.  He's now a PO2.  He's one of at least 5 that I've helped along, or helped in, or helped re-muster over.  I've done my part...I've hired my relief five times over.

That said, since my trade 'flipped the switch' to become W Eng, I don't believe we've trained a single technician.  We've trained maintainers.  Best analogies I can think of are that we have someone who can change the oil, but doesn't know why they should look at the old oil for sheen, particulate, odour, or colour.  Someone who can change a spark plug, but doesn't know how to gap it, or more importantly, WHY you would gap it.  

We used to get software release notes with the old CCS update CD's, and I'd read those notes to figure out what changes they'd made to the different modules like the NA (Nav) module, or the HMS interface software, or how the GDB (Global Data Base) module shifted to enable TACTAS contacts to be crossed over to SCS then pushed to the ASWC.  Now, the concept of doing anything like that seems lost.  That's all at the level of the developers and LM...not our maintainers.

If Chris (the PO2) were to sit in my kitchen today, I could not in good conscience tell him that my trade is one that he should join.  I was, once, able to suggest that the HT or ET trades were good options....that's now quite up in the air.

Why?

Well, as I said, we call ourselves 'technicians' but I don't think we have trained a new one in six years.  We cut our training in half to speed the process of getting techs to the fleet faster.  The goal at the QL3 (RQOS) level was to be capable of bringing a sailor in the door at St Jean, and then onto a ship within 12 months.  The things we gave up to enable that goal...well...we went from a stand-alone PC Maintenance and repair and Fiber-Optic course, plus a LAN/WAN course, 3 phases, about a month of training.  Now we have 59 x 50 minute periods according to the last time I examined the QSP...and that's for everything Network related.  We don't train Fiber-Optic repair.  That capability resides in FMF now, not the fleet.

We're also looking at ever aging ships...with no great prospect of seeing replacements for the Frigates until...what... the mid 2020s?  Is that being optimistic the way things are going with the NSPS?  So, our oldest Halifax Class ship will have been in the water for almost 35 years at that point.  The newest one will be almost 30.   The older the ships get, the greater the maintenance load.  

With a completely reorganized MARTECH trade managing most of the critical hull systems, and the legacy Hull techs, as mentioned, flowing out the door almost like water out of a fire-hose, what's going to happen when one of our ships goes bump in the night?  What's going to happen when we have another major fire onboard?  What's going to happen when the hulls crack after years of being driven hard? 

There's 4 million dollars worth of left-over steel that was placed in lay-down areas out at Shearwater by Hangar 4 after the HCM project was finished.  That's probably steel that should be in the hulls of our ships right now.  (That's a supposition...I'm not a hull surveyor.)

I'm not done with the Navy yet.  It's a beast of a thing, it ebbs and flows, there's good and bad, and right now, personally, the good still outweighs the bad, and I'm in a place where I can influence some things to the good.  So I'll do that.  

Could I recommend someone else, family, friend, or stranger, to follow my path today?  No.  I could not.

And that's a sad state of affairs for me to consider after spending more of my life in uniform than out.  

I'll go have a glass of rum now and ponder that all for a bit. 

Deep thoughts.

NS

Two additional data points - I was Senior Instructor for W Eng SONAR Techs in 2012/13, and a Senior Instructor at DC Div in 2015/16.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree. The average Canadian may not actually *know* any vets *or* serving members for that matter. Even if Vets are loud and proud, I don't think Vets issues will sway an election/popular opinion. The demographic is pretty small per capita and many (most?) are already vehemently anti JT/Liberal.



If the election was held + / - say...5-7 day from Remembrance Day...._*maybe*_ the public in general would really care about veterans and support to them.

People have said on here before that Canadian public support is " a mile wide but only an inch deep".  I think, myself, that assessment is overly generous.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I was thinking about this a lot after I posted.
> 
> I'm definitely in that boat. There's a large number issues that have caused me to lose faith in the system. The culminating point for me was reading we're letting terrorists back into Canada, not charging them. (I feel absolutely betrayed)
> 
> I'd be very honest about my views (like telling someone to get college before joining and how the family first is bukkshit) but in the context of this thread I wouldn't actively all of a sudden protest a recruiting office because I didn't get my money the liberals promised.  If that makes sense.



I (and a lot of my co-workers) put a lot of time and effort into trying to find these...individuals...over XX months and XXX missions over Iraq and Syria, putting our meat on the line for the same country who is now 'welcoming them home with open arms'.  Every minute I spent trying to find these f&&ks and get them into the targeting cycle, I was away from my wife.  I think that is possibly what makes me the angriest, the times my wife sat home alone, worrying and wondering.  Now, her sacrifice of 'going it alone' all those months was for...what.  For one of those fucksicles to move in next door?

My loyalty gauge is either faulty or reading low on this one.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

captloadie said:
			
		

> My question would be is do we apply the same logic to all individuals who leave Canada to fight under a different flag. If we have individuals fighting for the Kurds, or the Iraqi's, or the Syrians, should we also charge them? Ack, we all agree ISIL are bad. I think we can all agree that the Syrian regime isn't following what we would find acceptable western values. What if we find that certain Kurdish freedom fighters are really warlords seeking wealth instead of a nation state. Are Canadians fighting for/with those groups now lumped in as terrorists?
> /end tangent



Are any of these hypothetical situation involving a group recognized by our government and laws as a terrorist group? If so then the answer lies here.   http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-16.html

The difference is with the (assumed world-wide, IMO) fact that ISIS fits the bill as a terrorist group, Canada has been engaging them in combat for XX months to aide in their destruction, so the question, regarding the situation with returning ISIS fighters..is relatively clear.  Isn't it? 

Why cloud the issue WRT to ISIS fighters with "what ifs".  What is the point or value?  Trying to compare apples to apples by painting bananas red??


----------



## NavyShooter

I've had my rum, and on further pondering, realised that I missed the point of this thread.

Does Canada have a Sacred Trust and an obligation to it's troops?  

Yes.  It does.

Is the apparent re-entry into Canada by some of the very same ISIS terrorists that our guys have been boots on the ground chasing and hunting a breach of that trust? 

Yes.  It sure looks like it to me.  

Retraining and flowers and beads be damned.  Look at how effective our criminal justice system is at reforming criminals?  What is the percentage of those who have 'paid their debt to society' that re-offend?  70%?  80%?  What's the likelihood that this training will work for our friendly repatriated ISIS fighters....probably similar....?  And who are they most likely to target?  Historically, we can look to the fall of 2015 and categorically state that it's those in uniform....Nathan and Patrice.  


Is the change from a small life-long pension to a mediocre one-time payout a breach of that sacred trust?  


Some courts have said yes, some have said no.  


If the amount of the payout was actually enough for that troop to survive on for the rest of their lives, I don't think we'd be arguing this.  But, that payout is tiny, and when it is the only income for an injured troop....well....what do they do when it runs out?


Is the payment of 10.5 million dollars to a boy who was active with our enemies, carried a handful of hands, and killed a medic an apparent slap in the face of that sacred trust?  


Damn straight.  


Was nukfutz mistreated in Guantanamo?  Was the government of the day responsible?  Did they do everything in their power to help him?  Answer yes and no as appropriate, but the sniff test on this one to anyone who's spent time in uniform is a slap in the face with one of those 5 pound bags we talk about now and then.


If the Government of Canada does not have a Sacred Trust owed to those who wear a uniform, does that same government still have the moral impetus to place those in uniform in a position of unlimited liability?  


There's some deep-rum-soaked thoughts that I'll leave here as I head to bed.


Go ahead and rip me a new one for my thoughts on all this if you want.  I'll read it tomorrow.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I can only award you points once a day.  This would be 2x if l could.  Good post.


----------



## FJAG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I can only award you points once a day.  This would be 2x if l could.  Good post.



I took care of it for you.

 :cheers:


----------



## brihard

There’s a huge flaw in simply comparing the disability pension to the disability award, but ignoring that under the present system there are also monthly income supports. The Earnings Loss Benefit of 90% pre-release salary is not bad at all. The disability pension, while tax free, is not exactly huge. While the most severely injured under the old system - 98% or higher - would stack EXceptional Incapacity Allowance on top of the disability pension, anyone injured at 97% or below is only getting that relatively modest disability pension. Take pretty much anyone Sgt/Capt or above, or anyone making spec pay, and even compared to a 90s% disability pension, their ELB will likely come out higher. Take someone who’s at say 60% disability and unable to work at anything close to their old income, and the NVC comes out favorably. The pension act favors the 98%+ crowd, survivors, those who can still work gainfully, and Privates whose pay for ELB determination is low. Most others whose employment is impacted will be more advantageously served by 90% ELB and eventually RISB. 

That is not to say there is not room to improve. The VAC stakeholders policy advisory group came up with a pretty good structure of benefits that would stack appropriately and would be calculated to not leave anyone at less than what they would receive under pension act. What I am hearing suggests that the pension option will necessarily integrate to some extent with benefits like ELB.

Other aspects of NVC, like vocational rehab, are very desirable. Ironically, the RCMP veterans’ association had made representations to the effect that RCMP vets - who are under the same pre-2006 Pension Act system - would benefit from some of the NVC services.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Brihard: that's a good post. It seems apparent that some people, mostly journalists and even some injured veterans themselves who have simply moved on, do not understand the distinctions you have described. It does seem to me there are benefits stacked upon benefits that have taken on various forms and shapes without double dipping. While not all of the benefits are gold plated, they do exist and they are deserved- I certainly hope that is not in question anywhere.  The features of the system that are not-so-endearing are the cases where there are actuarial disparities, the stress of post release delays, establishing, proving and constantly reproving disability, and then all of a sudden the crushing impact on VAC of so many climbing aboard a system that cannot function well with the scale and financial magnitude of it all.   

As to the posts above concerning whether the sacrifice, pain and suffering or a veteran is comparable and then worth less than the despicable people alluded to, the moral answer is a clear no it is not comparable and no it is not worth less. The outcomes have been, and will continue to be, absurd.


----------



## PuckChaser

As a reference (and since Thalidomide is in the news recently), here is what those sufferers got/are getting as compensation:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/understanding-canadas-thalidomide-compensation-deal/article24578777/



> Original payment
> 
> In 1991, the federal government gave survivors of thalidomide a one-time payout of $8.5-million. That worked out to between $52,000 and $82,000 a person, depending on their level of disability. Advocates said the original sum fell far short of the mark.
> 
> Second lump-sum payment
> 
> Earlier this year, Ottawa offered lump-sum payments of $125,000 each for thalidomide survivors, about half of the amount requested by the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada. The government also said it would make up to $168-million available as annual compensation, but it did not explain how the survivors would have access to that fund.
> 
> Annual pensions
> 
> The government provided details on the pension on Friday, saying victims of the drug can receive annual payments of up to $100,000, depending on the severity of their disability. Survivors will receive the money every year for the rest of their lives, Ottawa says, with no need to reapply or submit receipts. The compensation will not be taxed, and the first payments are expected to go out in early 2016. They include:
> 
> $25,000 – Survivors who were assessed in 1991 as having relatively mild disabilities, and received a lower level of compensation.
> $75,000 – Survivors assessed at a higher level of disability in 1991.
> $100,000 – Survivors with more severe disabilities will be eligible for a reassessment that could allow them to receive this maximum level of support.
> Medical assistance fund
> 
> Ottawa said it would create an annual Extraordinary Medical Assistance Fund of $500,000 to pay for surgery and allow survivors to adapt their homes and vehicles to accommodate their disabilities. The government did not outline how the claims process would work, saying that would be determined in consultation with the Thalidomide Victims Association of Canada.


----------



## TCM621

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If the election was held + / - say...5-7 day from Remembrance Day...._*maybe*_ the public in general would really care about veterans and support to them.
> 
> People have said on here before that Canadian public support is " a mile wide but only an inch deep".  I think, myself, that assessment is overly generous.



A kilometer wide and a centimeter deep, that's the Canadian way.


----------



## TCM621

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Brihard: that's a good post. It seems apparent that some people, mostly journalists and even some injured veterans themselves who have simply moved on, do not understand the distinctions you have described. It does seem to me there are benefits stacked upon benefits that have taken on various forms and shapes without double dipping. While not all of the benefits are gold plated, they do exist and they are deserved- I certainly hope that is not in question anywhere.  The features of the system that are not-so-endearing are the cases where there are actuarial disparities, the stress of post release delays, establishing, proving and constantly reproving disability, and then all of a sudden the crushing impact on VAC of so many climbing aboard a system that cannot function well with the scale and financial magnitude of it all.
> 
> As to the posts above concerning whether the sacrifice, pain and suffering or a veteran is comparable and then worth less than the despicable people alluded to, the moral answer is a clear no it is not comparable and no it is not worth less. The outcomes have been, and will continue to be, absurd.



I think people would care less about the dollar figures and pensions vs lump sums if VAC could get their collective heads out of their asses and do the job they are supposed to do. They are currently closer to a 16 month application to award time than a 16 week determination time. Their front line people have limited access to relevant information or any power of help people. They have been "training new staff to resolve this issue" for like 4 years now.

The money is the easiest thing to focus on but the bottom line is that vets feel they are being treated poorly.


----------



## BDTyre

As a reservist who has received a disability award I'm in a bit of a different situation. I originally applied for two conditions: tinnitus and hearing loss. I receive full pop for tinnitus but zero for my hearing loss as it wasn't deemed to affect my quality of life (or something to that effect, it's been almost 7 years). I imagine that VAC reached this conclusion as I was (and still am) a serving member.

Now, my initial joy at seeing a decent sum of money in one go lasted a little while. And I made the money last too, but after 5 1/2 years it was finally gone, My joy was soured quickly when I realized that this amount was less than half of my civilian salary. True...I didn't "need" the money as I have a steady, full-time income. But it felt a bit insulting that this amount was intended to last me the rest of my life (which at the time could have potentially been 60 or so years). It came across as shut-up-and-go-away money.

Would I like a monthly pension? Absolutely I would. Because when (not if) I get medically discharged for hearing-loss (which I will claim as service related) I will now be out the additional $400 to $800 (after tax) I now earn per month as a Class A reservist. Again, I don't "need" that money, but that is still a decent chunk of money to not have. Consider also that now with my current condition, career choices I was in the process of making (and had put on hold to deploy) are now completely cut-off to me because I am medically unfit for those careers. A what-if, for sure, but at this point I can't even make that move to find out if it would pan out or not.

Does the government have a sacred trust with us? I believe they do. Not everyone is willing to risk life or limb, no questions asked. But is it to much to ask in return that if something were to happen and we can't resume a normal life that we are taken care of? I don't think it is. A precedent was set 100-years ago, and I think that counts for something. Of course, medical technology has advanced and certainly a higher percentage of disabled veterans can have a full career and earn a full income and maybe we can look at reducing a monthly pension in that case (and I would be one of those people). And for those that can't, they can retain full pension for life.

But honestly, the amount of money I received did not feel like compensation for a permanent life time injury. A monthly lifetime pension would be a little better as my injury is for life, but I'd rather not be in this situation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I imagine that VAC reached this conclusion as I was (and still am) a serving member.



I am still a serving member; injured in 1992, filed in Sept 2004, was awarded monthly pension in Oct 2004 for 10% lumbar spine;  QOL is and always will be impacted and I've been in the whole time, both Reg and Res.  



> But honestly, the amount of money I received did not feel like compensation for a permanent life time injury. A monthly lifetime pension would be a little better as my injury is for life, but I'd rather not be in this situation.



$370/month for me, and I'd give it all back to have a back again that is only as old as I am, and not have to worry about what birthday it will be that I am in a wheelchair.

I was surprised back in 2004 that the claim is only backdated to the month/year you file, not the month/year the injury was sustained.  The things you aren't told when you're signing the dotted line...


----------



## Rifleman62

Various video clips on the net with this:



> Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan says a lifelong disability pension for veterans will be revealed by the end of the year. The B.C. Court of Appeals ruled Monday against a veterans group fighting to bring back the previous pension system.


----------



## BDTyre

The end of the year is pretty close...


----------



## meni0n

House sits for one more week before winter break

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser

They said revealed, not passed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

No proof of course, but I have to wonder at the timing.

I'm sure the Trudeau gov't would be prudent to have a number of scenarios for the pension. I think it's possible that they were waiting for the B.C. court decision as to which one to roll out. Now that the case went against us, I tend to think we won't get the deal we would have, if Equitas had leave to pursue the lawsuit.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Agreed.  We're going to look like Lucy and Charlie Brown with a football.


----------



## Gunner98

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Now, my initial joy at seeing a decent sum of money in one go lasted a little while. And I made the money last too, but after 5 1/2 years it was finally gone, My joy was soured quickly when I realized that this amount was less than half of my civilian salary. True...I didn't "need" the money as I have a steady, full-time income. But it felt a bit insulting that this amount was intended to last me the rest of my life (which at the time could have potentially been 60 or so years). It came across as shut-up-and-go-away money...
> 
> But honestly, the amount of money I received did not feel like compensation for a permanent life time injury. A monthly lifetime pension would be a little better as my injury is for life, but I'd rather not be in this situation.



What I hear a lot is that VAC gives young people a lump sum and they spend it foolishly and what they really should be offering is investment advice.  If you receive a decent sum of money ( as much as half your civilian salary tax-free) there are many real options to seek out financial advice on your own.

What I am reading here is that you burned through a decent sum of money in 5 1/2 years and now wish you could have received a monthly sum for the rest of your life.  That monthly sum would decline in 'real value' over the span of the rest of your life.

I took the lump sum I was offered/given ($100K+) paid cash for a used car, paid down my mortgage and invested the rest wisely wisely.  What I have and will continue to reap from it far exceeds the monthly sum that I would have been received.  You seem to be confused by past regret, present value and future value. 

I would much sooner win a $100K Poker Lotto prize than win a cash for life lottery that pays me $250 per month for the next 35 years.  If you take the $100,000 of that prize and invest it for 35 years at an interest rate of 5% compounded annually it will be worth $551,601.54.  The $250 per month option if invested at the same rate/period will net you half that amount.  Try it for yourself:  https://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/calculators/compound-interest-calculator/


----------



## CombatMacguyver

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> That monthly sum would decline in 'real value' over the span of the rest of your life.
> 
> I took the lump sum I was offered/given ($100K+) paid cash for a used car, paid down my mortgage and invested the rest wisely wisely.  What I have and will continue to reap from it far exceeds the monthly sum that I would have been received.  You seem to be confused by past regret, present value and future value.
> 
> I would much sooner win a $100K Poker Lotto prize than win a cash for life lottery that pays me $250 per month for the next 35 years.  If you take the $100,000 of that prize and invest it for 35 years at an interest rate of 5% compounded annually it will be worth $551,601.54.  The $250 per month option if invested at the same rate/period will net you half that amount.  Try it for yourself:  https://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/calculators/compound-interest-calculator/



The old pensions were tied to the rate of inflation, so no it wouldn't decline in "real value".  The same with any pension.
Your second example also ignores inflation.  That $500k wouldn't have anywhere near the same "real value" 35 years from now.  Rate of inflation is usually around 3%, so a 5% interest rate gets you 2% a year (maybe), and that's only if you don't make any use of the cash for 35 years.  Lump sum payments are objectively inferior than pensions.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> The old pensions were tied to the rate of inflation, so no it wouldn't decline in "real value".  The same with any pension.
> Your second example also ignores inflation.  That $500k wouldn't have anywhere near the same "real value" 35 years from now.  Rate of inflation is usually around 3%, so a 5% interest rate gets you 2% a year (maybe), and that's only if you don't make any use of the cash for 35 years.  Lump sum payments are objectively inferior than pensions.



And, in the end, the reality is that we hire teenagers and train them to be good at attacking machine guns head on, not to be good financial managers. 

Our bible is CFP 309 (3), not the Wealthy Barber. We therefore owe our teenagers, in later life, a little bit of due diligence and overwatch when it comes to longitudinal financial management, IMHO.


----------



## Gunner98

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Rate of inflation is usually around 3%, so a 5% interest rate gets you 2% a year...Lump sum payments are objectively inferior than pensions.



Just cause you make guesses and do not research does not make you objectively correct!

The pension indexation rate effective January 1, 2017 is 1.3%.  So 5.0 - 1.3 = 3.7% which is almost twice what you guessed! 

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/after-injury/disability-benefits/disability-award/da-calc

Annual Payment Amount: $4,571.75  x 35 = $160,011.25
Amount of Award: $100,000.00
Minus Partial Payout: $0.00
Decision Date: 2014-1-3
Payments over: 35 years 

Since we are relying on opinions, IMHO I repeat I would rather subjectively enjoy my money and financial options up front, than keep getting a monthly pension long after I forget why I am getting it.

d&b - teenagers volunteer to join the CAF.....and in what conflict in the last 11 years (since intro of NVC) can you name that CAF teenagers attacked a machine gun head-on and earned a disability pension?  Few of these pensions result from such glorious feats!


----------



## Lumber

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> If the Government of Canada does not have a Sacred Trust owed to those who wear a uniform, does that same government still have the moral impetus to place those in uniform in a position of unlimited liability?



I think this is the best part of your post, and should be an engrained part of a nation's constitution. If we are tools of the government who can legally be asked to sacrifice our lives, should the government not have unlimited liability for our welfare? 

That being said, I still don't believe the lack of this sacred trust is enough reason to dissuade others from joining the CAF. Everyone's different, but I believe (naive as I may be, I'm still relatively young and less jaded then some of you) that we are employed for the benefit of the people of Canada, not the government of Canada. Unfortunately, we take our orders from the government, it the people, and we simply hope those orders are in the best interests of the people, not in the best interest of some politicians. 

I realize this isn't always the case, and sometimes the strategic direction and operational taskings of the CAF ARE done only because of the self interest of some politicians. Nonetheless, I see this as a unavoidable evil. We signed up to protect Canadians should the need ever arise, but there hasn't arisen a need due to a lack of a direct threat to Canada, so what else is the government going to do with its big shiny stick?

And, from a completely different point of view, compared to a whole bunch of civilian jobs, the Canadian Forces is a relatively safe occupation, with much higher pay and benefits. Yes, if you get really injured doing something tha the CAF ordered you to do, you might not get as good treatment as even I believe you should, but the chances of such an injury happening in the CAF (in times of peace) are relatively small compared the potential for serious injury in something like logging, fishing or construction.


----------



## Journeyman

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think ....


 :stars:
You've got 5-6 contradictory opinions here.  Maybe take a short time-out to work through what you believe.  :dunno:


----------



## Teager

> d&b - teenagers volunteer to join the CAF.....and in what conflict in the last 11 years (since intro of NVC) can you name that CAF teenagers attacked a machine gun head-on and earned a disability pension?  Few of these pensions result from such glorious feats!



Afghanistan. I was 19 while on pre deployment training and 20 when I was finally in country. OP MEDUSA we were ordered to take the white school houses which had a dug in enemy. We were hit with 82mm, RPG, machine gun and AK fire. Although I wasn't wounded that day many others were and others paid the ultimate sacrifice including my section commander. There were also some there that were 19 so yes teenagers have been in direct combat and injured under the NVC. I was injured 2 weeks later.


----------



## mariomike

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes, if you get really injured doing something tha the CAF ordered you to do, you might not get as good treatment as even I believe you should, but the chances of such an injury happening in the CAF (in times of peace) are relatively small compared the potential for serious injury in something like logging, fishing or construction.



I look at the CAF this way,

Public Safety Canada: "Public Safety Officers (PSO), such as firefighters, police, and paramedics, are personnel that provide immediate response to crises, putting their own safety at risk to aid the public and maintain public safety and security."
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2017-s011/index-en.aspx
"Compensation plans help provide a sense of security for the employee so that in the event of such an occurrence, they or their families will be compensated accordingly."


----------



## Jarnhamar

Found this fitting. Mods move and punish as required.

Not to beat a dead goat but this sums up how I feel the government treats us.


----------



## Gunner98

Teager said:
			
		

> Afghanistan. I was 19 while on pre deployment training and 20 when I was finally in country. OP MEDUSA we were ordered to take the white school houses which had a dug in enemy. We were hit with 82mm, RPG, machine gun and AK fire. Although I wasn't wounded that day many others were and others paid the ultimate sacrifice including my section commander. There were also some there that were 19 so yes teenagers have been in direct combat and injured under the NVC. I was injured 2 weeks later.



My sympathies to you and your friends and their families.

So the answer to my question is 1 - Op Medusa.  

Globe & Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/4-canadians-killed-6-wounded-in-afghan-battle/article1102563/ 

"Canadian troops launched a ground assault on an insurgent position Sunday and met fierce resistance that killed four Canadians and injured six others in one of the deadliest battles...Before Sunday's casualties, at least six Canadians died and 32 were wounded in dozens of bomb attacks and ambushes."


----------



## PuckChaser

For those concerned about the government fighting veterans in court, here's your chance to force CTV's Lisa Laflamme to ask the PM tough questions for his year-end interview. No sign up or email address required.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-national-news/ask-the-prime-minister

Here's the question I asked (feel free to plagiarize so it gets asked):



> What's your question?:
> 
> After promising to never fight Canadian Armed Forces veterans in court over benefits during the 2015 Election Campaign, why are the Equitas and Mefloquine lawsuits currently before the courts the only high profile litigation your government has not sought to settle out of court (Khadr, 3 Syrians, LBGTQ2 Public Servants all settled)?


----------



## cowboy628

hmmm, didn't know about the Mefloquine lawsuit.


----------



## PuckChaser

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> hmmm, didn't know about the Mefloquine lawsuit.



This has some details on the government arguments to have it thrown out.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-looks-to-dismiss-veterans-lawsuit-claiming-mefloquine-damage/article37046865/


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/disabled-veterans-equitas-supreme-court-1.4510457

*'Grossly unfair': Disabled veterans take pension battle with Liberals to Supreme Court* - Kathleen Harris - 31 Jan 18, 09:03 
_Case claims federal government breached 'solemn obligation' to care for injured soldier_

A group of disabled veterans is taking its legal fight for better pensions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The six veterans involved in what is called the Equitas case say the federal government has a sacred obligation to care for the country's wounded soldiers, and that the duty was breached in a 2006 overhaul to the compensation regime for those injured in the line of duty.

Mark Campbell, a retired major, and former combat engineer Aaron Bedard, both part of the Equitas suit, are holding a news conference in Ottawa at 10 a.m. ET today to release details of the legal appeal to the Supreme Court. CBCNews.ca is carrying it live.

Campbell said it's a "national disgrace" that the government is spending tax dollars in a legal fight against injured veterans, and "untolerable" that changes to the pension regime have left two standards of compensation for soldiers, depending on when they were injured.

"This is grossly unfair and it has to change," he said.

The overhaul replaced lifelong disability pensions with a lump-sum payment, career training and targeted income support, which the veterans claim was worth less than the previous pension system.

The case, which they hoped to turn into a class-action lawsuit, has been winding its way through the courts since 2012. It was launched when the Conservative government was in power but continued under the Liberals.

Last year the B.C. Court of Appeal struck down the veterans' claim.

Lawyer Don Sorochan, who is representing the Equitas group, hopes the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to that decision, and definitively rule on whether the government has a "social covenant" or sacred obligation, and whether it is enforceable.

"The position taken by the government was astonishing. For them to stand up and say we don't have any special obligation to veterans was completely contrary to everything they had been saying in Parliament, on the election campaign," he told CBC News. 

During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to give veterans the option to have a lifelong pension.

_Major changes announced_

After much frustration and protests, the government announced major changes to the compensation system in December 2017 that would pour about $3.6 billion into veterans' benefits.

But Campbell called that proposal a "sham."

"The new pension for life is nothing more than a shell game," he said.

According to a copy of the court filing to the high court, the case raises "fundamental questions about the unique and special relationship between Canada and members of the Armed Forces," and whether an "inadequate compensation scheme" breaches Canada's solemn obligation to those who served the country.

_'Profound implications'_

The filing says the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision could have profound implications for future military service in Canada and the very operation of Veterans Affairs Canada.

"Those who enlist in military service do so at great personal risk and sacrifice, but do so based on the premise which underlies the social covenant: Should they fall or be injured, the nation and people of Canada will ensure they will be looked after," the filing reads. "The implication of the Court of Appeal's decision is that this solemn obligation does not exist."

Sorochan said the social covenant has been recognized since the First World War, when promises were made to those who served their country. It was, and remains, necessary to build and retain a voluntary citizens' army.

Sorochan said the B.C.appeal court ruling effectively said even if a promise was made, any government could undo it "on a whim."

"I don't think that's much comfort if you're going to put your life on the line when you could take away the promise." 

In a news release, Marc Burchell, president of the Equitas Society, said the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling says there is nothing embedded in the law to protect injured veterans.

"This case is about making sure the government of Canada supports our fighting men and women as they must," he said. "The government must either reinstate the old Pension Act, or must make sure compensation for injuries under the New Veterans Charter is as good as – or better – than what they received before."


----------



## jollyjacktar

A look at what the government in the past has provided as part of the obligation to soldiers.  A very interesting and long list of programs.

http://wartimecanada.ca/categories/veterans-programs


----------



## Teager

Looks like the Equitas case has come to a close. 




> The Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to hear an appeal by military veterans trying to overturn a move by the federal government years ago to change their disability pension system.
> 
> The Equitas Society launched a class-action lawsuit on behalf of military vets when the then-Harper government brought in the new Veterans Charter, that moved from a lifetime pension to a lump-sum payment.
> 
> READ MORE: Veterans take dispute with federal government over disability pensions to Supreme Court
> 
> They lost in the BC Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court has decided not to hear their case.
> 
> Vancouver lawyer Don Sorochan, who led the legal fight, is disappointed.
> 
> “Yes, it’s the end of the line for the court action. I’m very disappointed that the legal system couldn’t provide the type of remedy that we need to ensure that the welfare of veterans is not at the whim of government.”
> 
> Sorochan was speaking on The Jon McComb Show on CKNW.



https://www.google.ca/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/4418507/military-veterans-lose-disability-pension-fight/amp/


----------



## Cloud Cover

That's very disappointing, big win for Trudeau.


----------



## cowboy628

Not next election


----------



## TCM621

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> Not next election



Sadly, it probably is. I don't see the CPC getting their Act together. And quite frankly, I don't think it matters. This was a lawsuit against the government not the Liberal or conservative party.


----------



## ModlrMike

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Sadly, it probably is. I don't see the CPC getting their Act together. And quite frankly, I don't think it matters. This was a lawsuit against the government not the Liberal or conservative party.



You mean the government that had this to say:

https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/33-social-covenant-canadian-veterans/

BE IT RESOLVED THAT a future Liberal government will uphold the principles of this social covenant in its defence and veterans policies, and will live up to our country’s sacred obligation to care for veterans and their families ...


----------



## MilEME09

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> BE IT RESOLVED THAT a future Liberal government will uphold the principles of this social covenant in its defence and veterans policies, and will live up to our country’s sacred obligation to care for veterans and their families ...



A similar motion passed at the recent conservative convention, not that it means anything, until the social covenant is enshrined in law, it will be used for political points


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Until the government decides to take care of the people they wounded and families of those killed, I will not be recommending the CAF as employment for anyone. It'll be "Run...as fast as you can......don't look back"  :waiting:


----------



## JesseWZ

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> Not next election



Not to mention, even if Veterans or Veteran supporters vote as a block, they are too thinly distributed to do any damage to a Liberal Party they were unlikely to have voted for in the past anyways. To Veterans, and *some* close family/friends, veterans issues matter. To the general public, not so much.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Not to mention, even if Veterans or Veteran supporters vote as a block, they are too thinly distributed to do any damage to a Liberal Party they were unlikely to have voted for in the past anyways. To Veterans, and *some* close family/friends, veterans issues matter. To the general public, not so much.



Many Veterans are also gun owners, another block of fragmented voters. Give a few common, overlapping issues and Veterans can be a subset of an overwhelming wave against the policies of the grits.


----------



## JesseWZ

recceguy said:
			
		

> Many Veterans are also gun owners, another block of fragmented voters. Give a few common, overlapping issues and Veterans can be a subset of an overwhelming wave against the policies of the grits.



But were largely rural, *conservative* minded folks like gun owners, and largely *conservative* minded folk like active serving CF members and veterans ever likely to vote for the Liberal Party? Traditionally they haven't, and I don't believe they'll feel a loss in vote share. Most of the coalition that coalesces around these issues are already conservative and likely would have voted conservative anyways.


----------



## devil39

recceguy said:
			
		

> Until the government decides to take care of the people they wounded and families of those killed, I will not be recommending the CAF as employment for anyone. It'll be "Run...as fast as you can......don't look back"  :waiting:



Agreed completely.  Not unhappy that it is unlikely my two sons will ever be joining. 

 Loyalty and "unlimited liability" should be two way streets.  Not the case anymore.

Not the Canadian Forces I joined almost 35 years ago, and served in for almost 33 years.


----------



## ModlrMike

I can't help but notice the deafening silence of the "ABC Veterans" crowd.


----------



## brihard

My take on it:

For about as far back as we've had a military, there was a gentlemen's agreement between the state and society, and those who step up to serve and put themselves at risk. It didn't need to be written down anywhere, it was just understood as 'the right thing' that the state would look after those injured and disabled in its service. There was no reason to question that.

When the New Veterans Charter came in in 2006, good intentions very quickly got tripped up by political interests, glacial bureaucracy, and senior civil servants pressed to save money. It was obviously and severely flawed, and there have been at least three big layers of band-aids applied since. Some things are now better, others aren't, and plenty of veterans are still receiving compensation well short of pre-2006 disabilities. I won't be breaking that down in detail, but in short this inequity between pre-2006 disability claims and post-2006 ones is what led to the lawsuit.

The real consequence of six years of legal action initiated by veterans against the government is this: The government as its formal policy under both the Liberal and Conservative parties has clearly stated and argued in court that the government does not have any particular duty owed to veterans. They have argued that the crown is not bound by any 'social covenant', or fiduciary duty, and that there is no applicable concept of 'the honour of the crown' in the relationship between the state, and our country's veterans.

And this argument succeeded.

The government won in court. The lawsuit was thrown out, and with it that gentlemen's agreement has been walked away from by the state. The treatment of veterans is now a purely political matter, as malleable as our policies on anything else that crosses a government department's desk. There's now a vacuum where we once had an understanding of how veterans would be regarded by the state.

In effect the courts have said that this is a matter for the legislature. We now have to look to those who would run for office next year, and get a clear commitment about how they will formally codify whatever will replace that now disintegrated relationship. This is a matter for our MPs now, and they need to hear about it.


----------



## OldSolduer

I fully agree. Well said Brian


----------



## cowboy628

So that's complete bulls-it. You wont change the political minds we've lost so . Now we my as well call for the disbanding of all military. I will never try to sell the army to any one I know.


----------



## FJAG

Brihard said:
			
		

> My take on it:
> 
> For about as far back as we've had a military, there was a gentlemen's agreement between the state and society, and those who step up to serve and put themselves at risk. It didn't need to be written down anywhere, it was just understood as 'the right thing' that the state would look after those injured and disabled in its service. There was no reason to question that.
> 
> . . .



I would like to agree with you on this but the concept of "looking after" veterans is a relatively modern feature going back to the First World War. Prior to that the British crown had anything but a "gentleman's agreement" with it's soldiers. Support for retired and wounded veterans was sketchy at best and left to others.

The following is a quote from What’s in a Name? Defining and Caring for “Veterans” The United Kingdom in International Perspective by Christopher Dandeker, Simon Wessely, Amy Iversen, John Ross, King’s College London



> In contrast to the above cases, successive British governments have tended to forget and neglect their ex-service personnel once they have left the armed forces. This culture of neglect is connected with Britain’s long history of possessing a professional, volunteer military—conscription has been the exception not the norm. Consequently, Britain developed a tradition of civil-military relations well before the development of the modern citizenship state. A central feature of this tradition has been the paradoxical relationship between the armed forces, the state, and civilian society. Government was able to develop systems of military manpower long before service members were in any position to enforce robust citizenship rights.8
> 
> Meanwhile, both government and much of the wider public could maintain feelings of pride in their armed forces, which could, quite easily, sit alongside perceptions of the military’s being on the margins of society; indeed, this was reinforced by its being deployed overseas on imperial duties. Proud of their armed forces, they could nonetheless adopt the view that looking after ex-service personnel was someone else’s responsibility. For many soldiers through the ages, their experience on departing the armed forces has been to hear the words “good bye and good luck!” This is not to deny countertrends. As Stanhope remarked a quarter of a century ago, Britain’s record for caring for ex-servicemen has not always been distinguished. There are those who would argue that [in 1979] it still falls short of the ideal. But it is better than it was, and the man who is really down on his luck should be able to find help somewhere.9
> 
> A key feature of this less-than-ideal record is that the central organs of the British state have not played a key role in providing assistance to ex-service personnel. Instead, this has flowed from a patchwork of regimental and corps associations from the early nineteenth century, followed by civilian charities, and only later still by the post–Second World War welfare state, which made services available to all citizens—both military and civilian.10



Full article here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publications/assetfiles/veterans/Dandeker2006-whatsinaname.pdf

While we would like to think that there is an unspoken covenant for our "unlimited service" the reality is that the courts have not found one and as such we need to seek statutory protection through our legislatures.

I know when the changes to our legislation came about a decade or so back I for one said that this is putting us into a "Worker's Compensation" scheme modelled on insurance principles. I felt that to be a bad thing at the time. Unfortunately the colleagues I was saying this to at the time seemed to shrug it off.

 :cheers:


----------



## Strike

Brian, that would make a really good "Letter to the Editor" or Opinion piece.


----------



## upandatom

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> So that's complete bulls-it. You wont change the political minds we've lost so . Now we my as well call for the disbanding of all military. I will never try to sell the army to any one I know.




I won't sell anyone on it either. This has become a tool and a game for whatever political party it suits at the time. 

I'm fed up with the current liberal government. 
I'm sure most of Western Canada is as well. I don't see them staying for another term, and I would strongly predict a PC majority. We have a very prominent issue with MSM here as they do south of the border. The MSM like to pursue hot topics, and alter the headlines to suit there needs. Canadians are starting to see that. 

Andrew Scheer, will be the next PM. There are too many Scandals for Trudeau to stay. He has lied about the Equitas, as well as the pension for life. Pension for life is a step in the right direction, more so a tip toe. It works for those who need it. the combo of the pain and suffering and additional pain and suffering is close to, in addition with DEC. It could be better. But the sheer low numbers, made me think they went in, found the cheapest way to push this "better program" forward. It helps those in dire, but is a a kick in the teeth for others. Some people would receive 30 a month for the rest of their life? Not even a case of beer outside of Quebec. That does not benefit them at all, the pension buyout, where you can take a lump sum, better be in play. Because $30-500 a month will not have a beneificial Impact on someone's life, where the $50k -$400k might. ( You could become mortgage free, therefore decreasing cost of living, improving your finances)

I always was certain Equitas would fail. Not to be a dick. But a supreme Court is not going to overrule something most Canadians see as trivial as their vets. We do not have the same support as Southside does.  I always hoped they would win, it would make the government accountable. But, I have lost faith in any governing body being accountable for their actions,


----------



## brihard

FJAG said:
			
		

> I would like to agree with you on this but the concept of "looking after" veterans is a relatively modern feature going back to the First World War. Prior to that the British crown had anything but a "gentleman's agreement" with it's soldiers. Support for retired and wounded veterans was sketchy at best and left to others.
> 
> The following is a quote from What’s in a Name? Defining and Caring for “Veterans” The United Kingdom in International Perspective by Christopher Dandeker, Simon Wessely, Amy Iversen, John Ross, King’s College London
> 
> Full article here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/publications/assetfiles/veterans/Dandeker2006-whatsinaname.pdf
> 
> While we would like to think that there is an unspoken covenant for our "unlimited service" the reality is that the courts have not found one and as such we need to seek statutory protection through our legislatures.
> 
> I know when the changes to our legislation came about a decade or so back I for one said that this is putting us into a "Worker's Compensation" scheme modelled on insurance principles. I felt that to be a bad thing at the time. Unfortunately the colleagues I was saying this to at the time seemed to shrug it off.
> 
> :cheers:



You’re right, of course, about going back prior to WW1. I was generalizing so as not to get sucked too far into specifics that are far enough removed by time that they would merely obfuscate. I think it is fair and sufficient to say that it’s been about a century. And yes it has never been lavish, nor am I saying it ought to be. The real gist of what I’m saying is that any residual pretense if there being an ‘understanding’ is now dead and gone. And yes, as you say (and as I did) this now needs to be legislated.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Now that the Court of Appeal sided against us, I don't expect our current government to do a single thing to improve our lot. O'Reagan has done absolutely nothing, since taking over from Hehr, who also did nothing but fuck us off. I'll be suprised if they even mention Veterans again before they hit the campaign trail.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Purely hypothetical but I'm seeing CAF members not just here but elsewhere as well saying they won't recommend the CAF to anyone after this.

I bet if that really caught on and a considerable number more CAF members went out of their way to anti-recruit people interested in the CAF the government might take notice when they can't send us around on their Ralph Wiggum "we're helping!" tours.


The Liberals made some pretty big campaign promises and were just as quick to break them.
The election time promises they pull out of their ass this coming election sure will be funny to see. Maybe promise the military more armored vehicles that magically appeared?


----------



## Pusser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Purely hypothetical but I'm seeing CAF members not just here but elsewhere as well saying they won't recommend the CAF to anyone after this.
> 
> I bet if that really caught on and a considerable number more CAF members went out of their way to anti-recruit people interested in the CAF the government might take notice when they can't send us around on their Ralph Wiggum "we're helping!" tours.
> 
> 
> The Liberals made some pretty big campaign promises and were just as quick to break them.
> The election time promises they pull out of their *** this coming election sure will be funny to see. Maybe promise the military more armored vehicles that magically appeared?



You're assuming that Canadians give a damn.  We're such a small part of the general populace that some recent surveys seem to indicate that a scary number of Canadians don't even know we exist.  Unfortunately, until Canadian force political parties to treat the Armed Forces as a serious election issue, they won't.  By and large, Canadians get what they vote for and we're not that.  

As for broken promises, it's kind of hard to show that.  No timelines were ever promised, so anything not yet delivered can still be "in progress."  For equipment this is certainly true as we all know that the procurement process is a long haul.  Lifetime pensions?  Remember, the Liberals never promised to simply reinstate the Pension Act as it was before.  They simply promised a return to lifetime pensions and they're delivering on that.  Folks may feel that the Liberal government has broken its promises, but a good spin doctor can show otherwise and Canadian are generally pretty happy to be spun on these issues.


----------



## TCM621

Pusser said:
			
		

> You're assuming that Canadians give a damn.  We're such a small part of the general populace that some recent surveys seem to indicate that a scary number of Canadians don't even know we exist.  Unfortunately, until Canadian force political parties to treat the Armed Forces as a serious election issue, they won't.  By and large, Canadians get what they vote for and we're not that.
> 
> As for broken promises, it's kind of hard to show that.  No timelines were ever promised, so anything not yet delivered can still be "in progress."  For equipment this is certainly true as we all know that the procurement process is a long haul.  Lifetime pensions?  Remember, the Liberals never promised to simply reinstate the Pension Act as it was before.  They simply promised a return to lifetime pensions and they're delivering on that.  Folks may feel that the Liberal government has broken its promises, but a good spin doctor can show otherwise and Canadian are generally pretty happy to be spun on these issues.



I think that if we are unable to recruit because Canadians don't trust the government to treat them fairly, we may see some changes. Unfortunately, that will take another 10 years to manifest if it does at all. 

I'm 4th generation military and I am not encouraging my kids to join.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Nobody gives a crap about the CAF or its members.  Ask the question:  "Does your immediate family care at all about issues facing veterans, CAF deployments, CAF procurement, etc?"

I can certainly say that mine don't and I am fairly certain it is the same for many other CAF members as well.  It's not that they don't care, it is that they have been conditioned to think that the Government will look after us when things go pear shaped, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

At the end of the day, every CAF member should have a decent life insurance policy of their own.  We are paid well enough that all that extra money we make, like all that tour money, danger pay, allowances, etc, should be shoved in to Investments, RRSPs, TFSA, Property, etc. 

I would love to see things change but I think it's only going to get worse, best milk the cow for all its worth.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Nobody gives a crap about the CAF or its members.  Ask the question:  "Does your immediate family care at all about issues facing veterans, CAF deployments, CAF procurement, etc?"
> 
> I can certainly say that mine don't and I am fairly certain it is the same for many other CAF members as well.  It's not that they don't care, it is that they have been conditioned to think that the Government will look after us when things go pear shaped, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
> 
> At the end of the day, every CAF member should have a decent life insurance policy of their own.  We are paid well enough that all that extra money we make, like all that tour money, danger pay, allowances, etc, should be shoved in to Investments, RRSPs, TFSA, Property, etc.
> 
> I would love to see things change but I think it's only going to get worse, best milk the cow for all its worth.



The CAF is sharing the experience of many other industries that are moving away from Defined Benefits pensions. An article about GM's changes is below:


GM’s pension plan changes are troubling: Wells


So how’s that workplace pension plan working for you?

Do you even know how it’s defined? Well, do you?

While the deal struck between GM and Unifor this week has been lauded as a success for the union, one significant concession occured: the loss of the company's defined benefits pension plan.

What was lost in bargaining — the vote on the deal is scheduled for Sunday — is the defined benefits (DB) part of the autoworkers’ hybrid pension plan, in favour of a defined contribution (DC) plan for all new hires. 

This sweeping away of the DB plan has been cast as an inevitability, the interment of something old-fashioned or out of step with the new world of pensions. So, you know, too bad, but it had to happen.


https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/09/26/gms-pension-plan-changes-are-troubling-wells.html


----------



## brihard

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What was lost in bargaining — the vote on the deal is scheduled for Sunday — is the defined benefits (DB) part of the autoworkers’ hybrid pension plan, in favour of a defined contribution (DC) plan *for all new hires*.



Classic- union members basically selling out future hires for their own benefit.


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> Now that the Court of Appeal sided against us, I don't expect our current government to do a single thing to improve our lot. O'Reagan has done absolutely nothing, since taking over from Hehr, who also did nothing but frig us off. I'll be suprised if they even mention Veterans again before they hit the campaign trail.


Once the writ is dropped we’re going to be front and centre. On the radar of every politician... I can hear them now “blah blah blah...Veterans are a national treasure yadda yadda yadda”.
I’ve stated that NO politicians or their minions are welcome at my house.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The CAF is sharing the experience of many other industries that are moving away from Defined Benefits pensions. An article about GM's changes is below:
> 
> 
> GM’s pension plan changes are troubling: Wells
> 
> 
> So how’s that workplace pension plan working for you?
> 
> Do you even know how it’s defined? Well, do you?
> 
> While the deal struck between GM and Unifor this week has been lauded as a success for the union, one significant concession occured: the loss of the company's defined benefits pension plan.
> 
> What was lost in bargaining — the vote on the deal is scheduled for Sunday — is the defined benefits (DB) part of the autoworkers’ hybrid pension plan, in favour of a defined contribution (DC) plan for all new hires.
> 
> This sweeping away of the DB plan has been cast as an inevitability, the interment of something old-fashioned or out of step with the new world of pensions. So, you know, too bad, but it had to happen.
> 
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/09/26/gms-pension-plan-changes-are-troubling-wells.html



I've been saying for a number of years that the CAF is eventually going to lose our Defined Benefit Pension, one way or another.  Best prepare ourselves for the brave new world 

As far as I'm concerned, the Government of Canada has said that they have no social contract with us; therefore, they shouldn't be surprised when many of us start acting like the mercenaries we essentially are.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Excellent :goodpost: HB.


----------



## Good2Golf

DC is not just the way of the future, it’s really moving forward now. DB, even at increasing member share, like 60/40, will go the way of the Dodo.  Private industry is there already, many pseudo Govt (like Universities) are well on their way to DC (less the old tenured profs on DB) and it’s just a matter of time before CFSA, PSSA and RCMPSA become DC and remain/further devolve to high member share programs.  

A wee bit of that quad/sled/boat in the PMQ driveway would do well to be redirected to a TFSA and a life insurance policy. 

:nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Pusser] 

As for broken promises, it's kind of hard to show that.  
[/quote]

The parties election platform promised no veteran would have to “fight the government” for support.

The federal government took veterans back to court to try to block certain benefits for injured soldiers despite that promise. 

I would consider being taken to court fighting for support.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The parties election platform promised no veteran would have to “fight the government” for support.
> 
> The federal government took veterans back to court to try to block certain benefits for injured soldiers despite that promise.
> 
> I would consider being taken to court fighting for support.



Exactly. That and the last three VAC ministers have sat on their hands, doing SFA except lecturing Vets and families about how we are supposed to be grateful to them for their inaction.

Trudeau's statement of "They are asking for more than we can give" is his point of finality when dealing with Vets. He's saying "I'm not giving you any more. Live with it and quit asking."

We're about to see his new platform, likely full of more promises to be broken once re-elected. It is going to be interesting to see what he's going to say to us, but interesting only to see what kind of fuckery is coming down the pipe. Whatever is promised, will not likely materialize anyway. Unless he promises to cut us all loose. That one I'll believe.


----------



## Infanteer

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I've been saying for a number of years that the CAF is eventually going to lose our Defined Benefit Pension, one way or another.  Best prepare ourselves for the brave new world



Not really a novel concept.  Members of the Australian military have no DB Pension and are enrolled in some form of Defined Contribution Plan.


----------



## dimsum

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Not really a novel concept.  Members of the Australian military have no DB Pension and are enrolled in some form of Defined Contribution Plan.



Yep.  The older folks who had a choice, by and large, didn't switch to the DCP.


----------



## Rifleman62

*Angry veterans today, union military next?* - National Post - 28 Sep 2018 - David J. Bercuson


Canadian governments have been at war with disabled veterans for over one hundred years, and the war is not over yet. The basic disagreement underlying this war is simple to explain, harder to understand and has been a political football since the First World War.

The veterans claim that since their terms of service came with the understanding that anyone who puts on the Queen’s uniform is agreeing to “unlimited liability,” the government has a duty to care for them after their service has concluded. This latter idea is sometimes referred to as a social contract. In other words, soldiers know and understand that their duty may result in their death or horrible physical or mental wounds. They thus claim that the government, representing the Canadian people, owe them adequate compensation for their wounds.

Recently retired Major Mark Campbell attempted to sue the federal government in the Supreme Court of Canada for additional compensation for the two legs he lost in the explosion of an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan in 2008. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case but gave no reason why it would not.

Prior to his approach to the Supreme Court, Campbell’s claim that a social contract existed between wounded veterans like himself and Canada had been rejected by a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling in December 2017. That court ruled that there was simply no basis in law for the social contract claim and that just because Canada’s prime minister in the First World War in 1917, Sir Robert Borden, had acknowledged a special duty to care did not mean that subsequent governments were constitutionally bound to follow that promise. Their reasoning was that although such a duty did exist constitutionally between Canadian governments and Aboriginal peoples, the duty did not apply to wounded veterans.

Campbell has vowed to keep fighting in the court of public opinion — meaning politics — but in a country like Canada that collectively remembers veterans only on Nov. 11, and treats wounded veterans not much better than a man or woman who falls off a federal delivery truck while bringing copy paper to a federal office, he has little chance of success. After all, both national governing parties, Conservatives and Liberals, have played politics with disabled veterans’ benefits since the end of the First World War.

For example, the government of Robert Borden did acknowledge that wounded veterans ought to be specially compensated for their war sacrifices, but when the veterans showed up to claim their compensation, the government’s clerks did their very best to deny claims, especially by accusing many of those First World War veterans of faking it because their injuries had actually been suffered after their military service was over.

More recently changes to the way compensation is paid were made under the Harper government, which decided that lifelong payments to Canada’s wounded would be eliminated and that one lump-sum payment would be offered instead. Veterans argued at the time — and many still do — that the move undercut the government’s financial liability and that they would receive far less in total than they had received before.

The current federal government made a big issue of veterans’ compensation in the past federal election, but basically hewed to the same course as the Conservatives when in power. Now they are offering a $100-million onetime payment for Canada’s 12,000 disabled low-income veterans whose payments had been clawed back by the previous government after 2013. Minister of Veterans Affairs Seamus O’Regan is optimistic that the vets will accept this payment, but several other lawsuits remain unsettled.

There is one key problem that lies at the heart of this issue: government bureaucrats and lawyers fight tooth and nail against the idea that the government has a constitutional obligation to care, no matter what offer a government is prepared to pay. So governments make promises to pay on the one hand while their bureaucrats and lawyers fight hard against the notion that there is any real obligation to pay.

In several European countries, similar imbroglios have led to unionization in the military — a make-believe social contract becomes a legally binding collective bargaining contract. No one has seriously proposed this for Canada, yet, but if these legal battles continue, can a Canadian Union of Military Personnel be far behind?


----------

