# SOLD OUT (under New Vets Charter)



## reccecrewman

I am writing to try and get more awareness out there regarding the VAC Disability Award system that was brought in with the New Veterans Charter of 2006.  This was touted by the Government as a better system than the old monthly pension system that has been around for over 50 years.  Native Americans have long held that they were unjustly screwed over by the Government many years ago when they were bought off their land for cheap trinkets and a pittance of money.  This new system is the same thing to Veterans who have served Canada.  Under the old system, soldiers received a monthly, tax free benefit in accordance with their pension percentage.  A quick look at the 2013 pension table shows that a 5% monthly pension is $129.67.  With a spouse, add another $32.42. One child is another $16.86, a second child is another $12.32 and all subsequent children are another $9.73 each.  So, a married Veteran with a wife and 3 kids and a 5% pension is getting $201.00, tax free per month (Until children reach 18 years of age or 21 if in post secondary).  A Veteran getting a 5% pension under the new system gets a lump sum of $14,929.40.  There is no extra allowance for a spouse and children under the new charter, it's a flat rate.

That being said, the Veteran with the 5% pension under the old system with a wife and 3 kids will make that 15k lump sum in 74 months or 6 years 2 months.  It doesn't matter if it's a 5% pension or a 100% pension, the numbers still wash out the same. A 100% pension under the old system is $2,593.32 a month, $648.33 for a spouse, $337.13 first child, $246.37 second child, $194.50 each subsequent child.  A 100% pension under the new system is $298,587.97. (Again, no extra money for dependants)  Take the spouse and kids out of the equation, it will take a Veteran 115 months or 9 1/2 years under the old system to get the same amount as a Veteran under the new system. If he has a wife or kids, well, it'll be that much quicker, but still, 9.5 years is the longest.

The best part of this is, Veterans under the old system have a guaranteed, tax free monthly income for life that they can count on to help supplement their monthly income (Or if disabled enough that they can't work, to live on alone).  New Veterans don't have this luxury.  A soldier who gets medically released for say, a back condition and gets a 40% pension from VAC is going to get a $120,000 payout and that's it. Unless he gets reassessed down the road,  he may get anther lump sum increase, but he has no guaranteed monthly income.  Perhaps he is unable to return to work with his condition, or if he can, his hours may be limited.  $120,000 is squat if he's 28 and has a whole life ahead of him and can not earn close to his former Military salary.

Herein lies the problem with the New Veterans charter.  We have thousands of Veterans whose lives have diminished and their capacity to earn a living reduced, and they are being punished for it.  The cherry on top of this crap sundae is with the SISIP decision made, Veterans with pensions under the old system and the 75% permanent impairment payments from SISIP are really laughing now as they may well be making more now than they ever did in the Military.  A Corporal who was medically released and pensioned under the old system is on the 75% SISIP payments, getting almost $3,000 a month from SISIP, PLUS, whatever their monthly pension is from VAC. Yay them, but the disparity between that Veteran and a New Veteran Charter Veteran is now grossly widened.  As the new Charter came out in 2006, the bulk of the New Veterans Charter pensioners are war wounded from Afghanistan, men and women who gave their all for Canada in combat, and are now being bought out for cheap.  One's quality of life is substantially higher than the other. Why is this? To me, this is disgusting that our Government has thrown us under the bus in this fashion and why? To save money long term.  

This does not have to stay this way.  The Government can scrap that garbage Charter and go back to the old system fairly easily.  All they need to do is calculate when a Veteran received his lump sum disability award, and then move forward on the calander 9.5 years and begin monthly payments from there for all the Veterans paid out disability awards.  The only way it can change is for Veterans to make noise on this issue.  Write letters to MP's, get the media involved so Canadians on a whole can be shown the differences between the old and new and get them on board.  This has to change.


----------



## Teager

I think right now everyone is waiting for the court decision in the NVC lawsuit and go from there. That decison is suppose to come this October.

I totally agree with what you have said and sure the solution is simple problem is it costs the government money. I can probably safely say that with the way things are currently with cut backs the government won't be giving a dime more to vets. Unless they are ordered by law to change it or some other means I don't see anything happening.

The government lawyers have already stated that if we don't like it elect a new government.


----------



## reccecrewman

Agreed Teager.... I only wrote this to illustrate a brief financial picture of the differences between the two. There is all sorts of print stating the two systems are not at all equal, but you very rarely see dollar values.  I simply wanted to be able to show (from a financial perspective) a rough dollar estimate of how gross the differences are.  

Also, I'm sure there will be numerous court tactics and stalls that will drag that NVC lawsuit on for awhile...


----------



## maniac

Don't forget that the crown lawyers have the "OBLIGATION" to appeal just as they did in the SISIP issue.  It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be!  I suppose (even though it is/was the right thing to do) they can not concede their position because it will cost millions and public funds are at stake.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> As the new Charter came out in 2006, the bulk of the New Veterans Charter pensioners are war wounded from Afghanistan, men and women who gave their all for Canada in combat, and are now being bought out for cheap.  One's quality of life is substantially higher than the other. Why is this? To me, this is disgusting that our Government has thrown us under the bus in this fashion and why? To save money long term.



I am always surprised at the free ride that the Royal Canadian Legion seems to get whenever this topic is discussed.  We should remember that the RCL leadership were very enthusiastic proiponents of the NVC, and I am sure that their support contributed to the government's adoption of the NVC.  In 06, the government was nowhere near as obsessive about spending - indeed they were quite profligate.  I think it likely that saving money was not the defining factor in the decision to adopt the NVC....

All of that to say that it was a group effort to throw us under the bus.


----------



## Rifleman62

I am surprised:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/veterans-organizations-stand-united-demand-government-reaffirms-its-social-contract-1820088.htm

August 12, 2013 19;24 ET

*Veterans Organizations Stand United and Demand Government Reaffirms its Social Contract to All Veterans*

Historical precedent exists to care for those who served

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwired - Aug. 12, 2013) - The Veterans Consultation Group representing various Veteran Organizations listed below, is outraged that Department of Justice lawyers representing the Government of Canada reject the view the Government has any moral or social obligation to Veterans and their families. On behalf of these Veteran organizations, The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion President, Gordon Moore strongly believes that all Canadians trust the Government will honour its obligation to the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the RCMP who willingly risk injury, illness or death to serve our country protecting the values and way of life we all enjoy. There is also a responsibility to the families of these men and women.

In 1917, just prior to the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden stated that "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." Inherent in these words by the Prime Minister, was the promise and moral recognition that Canada and the Government of Canada would never forget the sacrifice its Veterans and their families make. This promise formed the basis of Canada's legislation to support our Veterans.

Moore is concerned that the Government has forgotten this commitment. "On behalf of all 320,000 Legion members across the country and the members of the listed Veteran Organizations I am asking the Government to demonstrate its social and moral obligation to all Veterans and their families who serve and continue to serve our country and assure us that there will be an expanded review of the New Veterans Charter this fall." In addition Moore states, "The recently filed lawsuit highlights beyond any doubt the need to confirm the Government's commitment to all Veterans, to hear from Veterans and their families and to fully understand the impact of this important piece of legislation. When have injured soldiers ever sued their government?"

The money and travel related to commemorating Canada's military history does not have meaning when soldiers are suing their Government. With the 100th anniversary of World War I just around the corner, the most profound activity this Government could deliver to honour this historic event would be to reaffirm its social contract to all Veterans and their families and assure an expanded and transparent review of the New Veterans Charter is conducted.

This is exactly what the Legion along with the members of the Veterans Consultation Group asked for in their letter to the VAC Minister in May of 2013. We are still waiting for the Minister, and indeed the Government, to take action on this issue.

This media release is supported by the following Veterans Organizations:
The Royal Canadian Legion
Army, Navy, and Air Force Veterans of Canada
National Council of Veterans Associations/ War Amps
Naval Association of Canada
Air Force Association of Canada
The Canadian Army Veterans
Canadian Naval Air Group
Wounded Warriors Canada
Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association
Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping
Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
Hong Kong Veterans Association of Canada
The Company of Master Mariners of Canada
Korea Veterans Association of Canada
RCMP Veterans Association


----------



## PPCLI Guy

www.anavets.ca/newsletters/May2006Newsletter.pdf‎

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/press/viewspeech/326


----------



## GAP

If I remember correctly this was started by the Liberals and instituted by the Cons. 

All I remember about the commentary was the vision of dollar signs dancing in the heads of people. They thought the lump sum payment was the end all to be all.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I am surprised:
> 
> http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/veterans-organizations-stand-united-demand-government-reaffirms-its-social-contract-1820088.htm
> 
> August 12, 2013 19;24 ET
> 
> *Veterans Organizations Stand United and Demand Government Reaffirms its Social Contract to All Veterans* ....


Guys, guys, guys, no worries - the new Minister has it in hand....


> *.... 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.*


We'll see ....


----------



## Szczep

Passing this on: taken from veteranvoice.info

Our Duty - Denial of Social Contract
« on: August 17, 2013, 02:33:07 PM »
From: Our Duty [mailto:exec@ourduty.org] 
Sent: August-17-13 2:29 PM
Subject: Denial of Social Contract

NOTE: I have BCC’d some individuals who need to read this but don’t want to be part of a massive email chain. To those people: I apologize for contacting you, but this is absolutely critical. This should be the only email you receive unless you reply.

NOTE: This email has not included, to my knowledge, any media or politicians, only veterans and advocates. Please respect the sensitive nature of this email and DO NOT add any outsiders.


Veterans,

I know you have been following the lump-sum class action suit, but to refresh your memory....

On 24 July, Harold Leduc noted:
They based their argument and it's now a matter of public record in a court of law that the Government feels:

1. Veterans are essentially no different than any other citizen collecting other social benefits (welfare, unemployment, etc) and we are owed nothing more.

2. There is no 'Social Contract' between veterans, the Government and the People of Canada despite it being written throughout legislation and in CF publications.

3. That if citizens (Veterans in the case of the NVC) don't like the Government's laws, we are free to replace the Government through an election.


You must all take careful note of those statements. They transcend mere legal wrangling - they are the official position of the Government of Canada as presented by Crown attorney. Such arguments in a case like this necessitate Government approval, not just by the Attorney General, but also by the PMO. These are not law references, but official policy statements. The Government of Canada has stated that it doesn't owe you or serving members anything. Entitlements will, therefore, be presented as some sort of gift or benefit, delivered from a condescending hand, not out of moral or legal obligation.

Regardless of how the class-action suit proceeds, you can expect that this will be government’s new approach: shifting away from “entitlements” through “benefits” into “nothing more than the average citizen”. As we’ve seen with Harper downloading RCMP medical to the provinces, among other moves, I expect the long-term plan will be to move all veteran and in-country medical expenses to medicare and disability pension to CPP. THAT is what those arguments hint at.

At this time, you need to do two things:

1 - Unite against those arguments
2 - Appeal to civilians

Issue #1, Unity:

I appreciate that there are many complex issues relating to organizational unity and that, perhaps, it is impossible to achieve. That is beside the point at the moment. Government considers you all one demographic. Civilians consider you all the same. Maybe you are not, but in this, perception is reality. 

Government has struck at the foundation of volunteer national service: the social contract. Government says it doesn’t exist. If no one comes out strongly to prove them wrong, then the contract WON’T exist, regardless of what you were told upon enlistment or how many papers and bits of legislation say otherwise. From Government’s standpoint, silence equals agreement.

Therefore, regardless of your feelings on a national unity organization, you must all act against Government’s claim. If you cannot form up under one umbrella, then at least find common cause in this issue and send out statements denouncing the Crown’s argument.

Issue #2, civilians:

There is a tendency in the veteran-government debate to ignore civilians. It should always be remembered, by both sides, that Citizens are the employer of BOTH. As such, the public are the ones to which you must appeal. 

The social contract is not with Government. It is between those who serve and the people of Canada. Government can argue what it wants if citizens are not involved. However, if citizens declare that the social contract DOES exist, government does not have a legal leg to stand on. While judges generally do not consider public opinion, in this case, they will have to - the social contract is unwritten but at the heart of the argument. It exists if both sides say it does. If the public - or a significant portion - declares there is an obligation between the people and those who served, the Crown’s case collapses.

Therefore, whatever personal contempt you might feel for civilians, you need to get the public on board to win this fight. That means talking with them and not blaming them.

As those who recently attended the Military Minds weekend can attest, public support IS there. Citizens love and support those who have served; they just don’t know what to do to show it. When an event appears, they turn out in droves, even with no promotion. If Citizens are shown what they can do, now, to support veterans, most will be glad of the opportunity.

To that end, I have created a petition whereby Canadians can declare the social contact exists. If significant numbers sign (1% or more of the population), the Crown’s case collapses AND future Government moves towards eliminating benefits to veterans are headed off.

Our Duty is pleased to take the lead in this initiative, but we cannot do this alone. Everyone needs to unite to declare the social contract real and valid. While I will be promoting this petition, I hope you will join in and do the same. There are 1 million active duty and veterans; 1 in 33 Canadians. Every one of them has friends and family. So promote, beg, plead, cajole, anything you have to, but get their names on this document. I will be pushing the civilians and enlisting other Citizen groups to help.

The petitions are found here:

English:
https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/government-of-canada-the-social-contract-with-veterans-exists-and-we-must-keep-our-bargain

Francais:
https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/gouvernement-du-canada-le-contrat-social-avec-les-anciens-combattants-existe-et-nous-devons-garder-notre-affaire


Everyone, please carefully consider your next move on this issue. If you lose on the social contract, you will lose on all future issues. Government will have no reason to sit down with any of you for any reason.

Regards,
Jeff Rose-Martland
President
Our Duty

-----
Our Duty is a citizens' organization dedicated to ensuring Canada's veterans receive proper pension and benefits.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> All of that to say that it was a group effort to throw us under the bus.



..and if I remember right a lot of folks on this forum thought it was a good idea,....at the time.


----------



## Danjanou

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I am always surprised at the free ride that the Royal Canadian Legion seems to get whenever this topic is discussed.  We should remember that the RCL leadership were very enthusiastic proiponents of the NVC, and I am sure that their support contributed to the government's adoption of the NVC.  In 06, the government was nowhere near as obsessive about spending - indeed they were quite profligate.  I think it likely that saving money was not the defining factor in the decision to adopt the NVC....
> 
> All of that to say that it was a group effort to throw us under the bus.



I'm not..... and I say that as an RCL member


----------



## The Bread Guy

So, will this do anything re:  the litigation under way?  Thinking "no" because if Canada was throwing in its cards on the legal action, it would have announced that instead.  This, from the Info-machine today - highlights mine:


> After reviewing the compelling conclusions of the Veterans Ombudsman and following several weeks of extensive consultation with stakeholders—including Canadian Veterans, serving Canadian Armed Forces personnel, non-profit organizations, international partners and private sector companies—the Honourable Julian Fantino, Canada’s Minister of Veterans Affairs, announced today that the government will conduct a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, including all enhancements, with a special focus placed on the most seriously injured, support for families and the delivery of programs by Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> (....)
> 
> “Our Government remains fully committed to providing Veterans with the support they need to lead successful lives beyond their service to Canada in uniform,” said Minister Fantino. “To that end, we have already made dramatic improvements—and will continue to strive for enhancements—to ensure that the tools and assistance relied upon by Canada’s Veterans remain as effective, efficient and accessible as possible. *I look forward to working with my parliamentary colleagues to consider responsible changes in order to reach a common goal of better serving those who served Canada.”*
> (....)
> 
> Minister Fantino will continue to hold meetings with Veterans’ groups to seek feedback on optimizing the impact of programs, benefits and services available to Canada’s Veterans.
> 
> The New Veterans Charter was last reviewed by Parliament in 2011. The fall parliamentary session will begin Wednesday, October 16th, 2013.


Compare the 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 ....*



Also, the Minister's announcement is interestingly timed, given this response from the Veterans Ombudsman:


> Guy Parent, Canada's Veterans Ombudsman, is pleased that the Honourable Julian Fantino, Minister of Veterans Affairs, has agreed with his recommendation to conduct a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, including all enhancements, with a special focus placed on the most seriously injured, support for families and the delivery of programs by Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> (....)
> 
> On Tuesday, October 1, the Veterans Ombudsman will publically release his Report on the New Veterans Charter with an accompanying Actuarial Analysis at a national news conference .... This is the first time that an Actuarial Analysis will accompany any report that has ever been done on the New Veterans Charter. "There are no hypotheses or speculations in my Report,” said Mr. Parent. "I will be presenting to the Veterans Community and to Canadians next Tuesday just evidence-based facts and analysis."  The Actuarial Analysis backs the recommendations that the Veterans Ombudsman will be putting forward and shows exactly where the weaknesses are in the New Veterans Charter, what they are, and what it is going to take to fix them ....


Now, when the NVC & the 'Budman's recommendations/costings come up in Question Period, the answer will be "we welcome the 'Budman's input as we comprehensively review the NVC".


----------



## ArmyGuy99

I think they know they're going to lose and are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging.  Change it now, that way there when they lose they know the clock stoped at year 20XX.  Instead of having just keeping going and having the numbers running up and up since 2006.  

It's all a PR Shame anyway.  It'll take them 3-5 years to get anything tabled to begin with and another 3 or so to get anything passed.  God willing we'll have the suit won before then.  Of course we may have to dig in.  I for one am in for the long haul. :warstory:

Blue, Red or Orange it doesn't matter once their in power, they're promises go out the window and the screwing over begins.  Maybe I'll start a party whose official colors will be florescent green or yellow, who's campaign promise will be lie, cheat and steal.  At least we'll be honest about it.

oi


----------



## Edward Campbell

CBC News is reporting that Veterans charter to get surprise review, Fantino announces.

The report goes on to say that "Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino made the surprise announcement on Thursday, just days ahead of a new report which is expected to show that the marquee legislation is leaving some of the most seriously wounded ex-soldiers out in the cold ... "We have already made dramatic improvements, and will continue to strive for enhancements, to ensure that the tools and assistance relied upon by Canada's veterans remain as effective, efficient and accessible as possible," Fantino said in a written statement ... [and] ... The review is an about-face for the Conservatives, who stated in the aftermath of the last overhaul that no additional changes would be considered until the mandatory five-year review in 2016."

I have always thought it was a political mistake to stick with the Charter. Despite the costs, and they would be considerable, the politically smart decision would have been to declare the Charter tobe a deeply flawed Liberal policy that aimed to save a few bucks on the backs of young wounded vets and to put back in place benefits that are consistent with those awarded to Second World War and Korea vets. But, be aware: a *fair* system will be tough to get past Finance and the Treasury Board.


----------



## Nemo888

Screwing over veteran's is an odd issue to be nonpartisan about. Blaming the Liberals would be a great idea. The main reason for the NVC was money though. Bean counters where nosing around Ottawa saying the cost of supporting veterans would be greater than prosecuting the war and that this was unacceptable. I think that was early '05 IIRC. The douche who thought up the scheme got MS so she got let off the hook.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Via a leak to The Canadian Press:


> Some of the country’s most severely disabled soldiers will take a major financial hit once they hit old age and risk living out their final years in near-poverty, Canada’s veterans ombudsman has concluded.
> 
> A report and a painstaking actuarial analysis by Guy Parent’s office are due to be released on Tuesday, but copies were obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> The study compares the old system of compensating veterans under the Pension Act with the New Veterans Charter, marquee legislation championed by the Harper government since it was enacted in 2006.
> 
> It shows that roughly 406 severely disabled veterans, mostly from Afghanistan and recent peacekeeping missions, will be left out in the cold because they don’t receive certain allowances — or a Canadian Forces pension.
> 
> “It is simply not acceptable to let veterans who have sacrificed the most for their country — those who are totally and permanently incapacitated — live their lives with unmet financial needs,” said a leaked copy of the report.
> 
> Almost a full one-third of the nearly 1,500 soldiers, who have thus far been declared permanently disabled, could also be a risk, depending upon their circumstances. Many of them receive only small allowances and pension entitlements.
> 
> The report, which was four years in the making, shows families of veterans who’ve passed away also take an old age hit because “the cash flow going to survivors ceases when the veteran reaches the age of 65,” whereas it continued under the previous pension system ....


----------



## Teager

I guess that explains why Fantino announced the "Surprise review of the Charter".


----------



## Teager

Update on the Ombudsman report.


Canada’s veterans ombudsman says current legislation is failing some of the most severely wounded and disabled soldiers, “and will continue to fail them unless changes are made quickly.”

Guy Parent released his report Tuesday on the New Veterans Charter enacted in 2006, which was compared to the old system of compensating veterans under the Pension Act.

Parent said his analysis of the benefits and programs available to veterans shows a number of “shortcomings.”

Related Stories
Ombudsman's report, critics pressure Conservatives to fix veterans charter Severely disabled vets take financial hit in old age under new system: report Photos
 Canada’s veterans ombudsman Guy Parent releases his report on the New Veterans Charter in Ottawa, Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2013. 
 Master Corporal Jody Mitic walks, on his 'running legs' past a fellow soldier, as he prepares for a charity run in Toronto in this March 15, 2009 photo. (Chris Young / THE CANADIAN PRESS)
His report found that hundreds of the most severely disabled veterans will take a financial hit after they turn 65 because they do not have military pensions and some of their charter benefits will end.

The report also found that government compensation for pain and suffering is inadequate.

The legislation needs improvement in three key areas: financial, vocational rehabilitation and family support, Parent said.

“We either deal with these issues now or we are going to have to deal with the cost later,” he said at a news conference in Ottawa.

Parent said he’s “encouraged” that Minister of Veterans Affairs Julian Fantino agreed to his recommendation for a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter.

The Conservative government overhauled the charter in 2011 to include more money for lost income replacements. Those changes will be reviewed by a parliamentary committee this fall.

More to come…



Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-veterans-charter-failing-disabled-soldiers-ombudsman-1.1478144#ixzz2gTxXEtsN


----------



## Danjanou

And the Oscar for best public back peddling by a nonprofit agency trying to cover their ass goes to…

http://www.legion.ca/Home/WhatsNew_e.cfm



> The Royal Canadian Legion NEVER fully or unconditionally supported the New Veterans Charter. When the NVC was introduced in 2006,


----------



## Teager

Danjanou said:
			
		

> And the Oscar for best public back peddling by a nonprofit agency trying to cover their *** goes to…
> 
> http://www.legion.ca/Home/WhatsNew_e.cfm



Thats pretty funny yet after that quote they go on to say they were behind the NVC because it was a living charter. IMO that means they supported it. The Legion seems very confused.


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the 'budman's news release - highlights mine:


> Today, Canada's Veterans Ombudsman, Guy Parent, released his Report on the New Veterans Charter accompanied by an Actuarial Analysis. The report puts forward evidenced-based recommendations that address *shortcomings in three New Veterans Charter program areas: financial, vocational rehabilitation and assistance, and family support*. This is the first time that recommendations for improvements to the New Veterans Charter have been supported by an actuarial analysis that pinpoint exactly where the current suite of New Veterans Charter benefits are failing some Veterans today, and will continue to fail them unless changes are made quickly.
> 
> “I believe that this report breaks new ground on how we view the New Veterans Charter,” said Mr. Parent. “There are no hypotheses or speculations in my Report, just evidence-based facts and analysis with recommendations. If it is given the consideration that I believe it deserves, it could well be a game changer by serving as the baseline of how the Charter should be evaluated today and in the future.”
> 
> Mr. Parent is encouraged that the Honourable Julian Fantino, Minister of Veterans Affairs, agreed to his recommendation for a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, including all enhancements, with special focus placed on the most seriously injured, support for families and the delivery of programs by Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> Notwithstanding the enhancements brought about by the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act, Bill C-55, in 2011, Veterans and their families continue to face problems. “I urge the government to use my Report on the New Veterans Charter and its Actuarial Analysis as the blueprint for action for the upcoming parliamentary committee hearings this fall, and to move quickly to address the transition support shortcomings put forth in my report.
> 
> “I also urge the government to institute a regular two-year Charter review to demonstrate to Veterans and their families, and to all Canadians, that the parliamentarians who unanimously voted in the New Veterans Charter in 2005 are going to steadfastly stand up for the promise that they made to our Veterans.”
> 
> In the last 16 months, the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman has conducted the most comprehensive and intensive research and analysis work that it has undertaken. “In addition, I have personally tested our growing body of recommendations with almost all Veterans' organizations across the country, as well as with other stakeholder groups with an interest in Veterans' issues,” said Mr. Parent. “I have also had multiple working consultations with Veterans and their families and have briefed parliamentarians on my team’s findings."
> 
> “The bottom line is this,” said Mr. Parent, “We either deal with these issues now or we are going to have to deal with the human cost later ... when it will cost us much more. Concrete and urgent action is required to implement the recommendations in my Report. Our Veterans deserve no less in return for their service and sacrifice to Canada.”



Here's  link to the report, and its recommendations, as well as the actuarial info:


> Financial Support
> 
> The Veterans Ombudsman recommends that the Minister of Veterans Affairs improve the New Veterans Charter’s economic financial support benefits provided to Veterans by:
> 
> 1.Providing additional financial support after age 65 to eligible totally and permanently incapacitated Veterans to ensure that their monthly benefits are no less than 70 percent of their indexed pre-release salary;
> 2.Increasing the Earnings Loss Benefit to 90 percent of pre-release salary;
> 3.Providing the same Earnings Loss Benefit to former part-time Reserve Force members whose injury or illness is related to service;
> 4.Calculating the annual cost of living adjustment to the Earnings Loss Benefit based on actual annual increases in the cost of living as measured by the Consumer Price Index; and,
> 5.Providing the Permanent Impairment Allowance and Permanent Impairment Allowance Supplement benefits to all totally and permanently incapacitated Veterans who are in receipt of a Disability Award and an approved rehabilitation plan for the condition that is causing the total and permanent incapacity.
> 
> The Veterans Ombudsman recommends that the Minister of Veterans Affairs improve the New Veterans Charter non-economic compensation provided to Veterans by:
> 
> 1.As a first step, increasing the maximum amount of the Disability Award to the maximum judicial cap for non-pecuniary damages awarded by Canadian courts;
> 2.Conducting a comprehensive review, including consultations with Veterans’ stakeholders, to determine what the appropriate maximum amount should be to fairly compensate Canadian Forces members and Veterans for pain and suffering resulting from an injury or illness in service to Canada; and,
> 3.Reviewing the adequacy of the $500 provided for financial counselling.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Vocational Rehabilitation and Assistance Support
> 
> The Veterans Ombudsman recommends that the Minister of Veterans Affairs improve vocational rehabilitation and assistance support to Veterans by:
> 1.Instructing the Department to develop appropriate program measurements to effectively monitor Veterans' progression and success in completing their Individual Vocational Rehabilitation Plan, including subsequent employment;
> 2.Amending the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Regulations to ensure that all costs associated with post-secondary education are paid;
> 3.Instructing the Department to amend its policies relating to vocational rehabilitation and assistance to ensure that the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Regulations are liberally interpreted with regard to the cost and duration of an Individual Vocational Rehabilitation Plan;
> 4.Instructing the Department to amend its policies relating to vocational rehabilitation and assistance to ensure that the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Regulations are liberally interpreted to allow more flexibility for Veterans to acquire new skills and higher education while also taking into consideration the Veteran's aptitude and motivation in the development of an Individual Vocational Rehabilitation Plan;
> 5.Increasing partnership opportunities to better help Veterans obtain good paying civilian jobs, in collaboration with the Minister of National Defence; and,
> 6.Undertaking an independent review of the dual SISIP Financial Services and Veterans Affairs Canada income support and vocational rehabilitation programs to determine whether the current construct is effective, in collaboration with the Minister of National Defence.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Family Support
> 
> The Veterans Ombudsman recommends that the Minister of Veterans Affairs improve family support to Veterans by:
> 1.Providing proper counselling, information, communications and outreach to families;
> 2.Extending access by families to Military Family Resource Centre programs after the medical release of the Canadian Forces member, in collaboration with the Minister of National Defence;
> 3.Harmonizing Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada financial assistance provided to families;
> 4.Developing a caregiver compensation program to compensate the spouse or family member who acts as the primary caregiver to a seriously disabled Veteran;
> 5.Providing the same access to the Treasury Board Pensioner Dental Service Plan to Veterans and their families as that provided to them by Veterans Affairs Canada under the Public Service Health Care Plan; and,
> 6.Eliminating the time limit for surviving spouses to apply for vocational rehabilitation and assistance services.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Danjanou said:
			
		

> And the Oscar for best public back peddling by a nonprofit agency trying to cover their *** goes to…
> 
> http://www.legion.ca/Home/WhatsNew_e.cfm


Funny, that link doesn't work for me now - guess someone's editing?


----------



## Lightguns

For a historical compasrion, here is their 2006 annoucement:

http://www.legion.ca/News/05_Apr25_e.cfm


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yes it is...................they supported it along with almost every soldier on this site and in the media.

Amazing how conveniently that part is forgotten when it turned to s%#@.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> For a historical compasrion, here is their 2006 annoucement:
> 
> http://www.legion.ca/News/05_Apr25_e.cfm


Can't seem to make that one work in my browser, either, so here it is attached in case link doesn't work for you too.


----------



## Danjanou

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny, that link doesn't work for me now - guess someone's editing?



Too bad I copied and pasted the whole thing  >



> Legion advocacy – Unwavering & Constant
> 
> 
> Each and every day The Royal Canadian Legion is working to ensure all Veterans and their families receive the life-long care and benefits they are entitled to. It is not every day that the challenges Veterans face in obtaining these benefits are brought forward in the media, so quite often the work of the Legion goes unnoticed. In the past few days the attention of millions of Canadians has been focused on the efforts of Veterans to bring about changes to government programs that provide Veterans with benefits rightly owed to them resulting from injuries sustained during service to the Nation. More...
> 
> •Read the Letter to Veterans Affairs Canada Minister Steven Blaney
> •For more on what the Legion does for you, read our Factsheet.
> A Reminder of the Legion’s Position on the NVC
> 
> The Royal Canadian Legion NEVER fully or unconditionally supported the New Veterans Charter. When the NVC was introduced in 2006, the Legion, as well as other veterans’ organizations, was behind the New Veterans Charter in the beginning because they were told that it was a “living charter” which would be amended as flaws or gaps were identified.
> 
> The Legion acknowledges that the NVC was adopted without clause-by-clause review in Parliamentary Committee and in the Senate because of a perceived urgent need to better look after modern Veterans and their families, and to facilitate their transition to civilian life.  The Legion went along with the introduction of the NVC on the basis that it would be a “Living Charter” and improvements would be made when required.
> 
> The Legion has been working to make changes to the NVC since it was introduced, including advocating for changes to the lump sum payment. We posted a statement on where the Legion stands on the NVC in September 2010, and we continue to press the government for changes to the Charter. Please see the following links for full details:
> 
> Policy Ad #1
> Policy Ad #2
> 
> The Legion stands for ALL Veterans, and we will continue to support them and advocate on their behalf.



Gee wonder what I'll be bringing up at my Branch meeting this week.  8)

Teager confused is an understatement.


----------



## stokerwes

Perhaps its time to look at the organization and it's usefulness. I did attend a branch for a short time but after seeing that I was one of the few that had served I didn't think it was a place I wanted to be associated with.


----------



## Lightguns

Branch service officers are quite excellent   I had amazing help from them. I think there is a certain "star struck" behaviour when the provincial and national command hob knob with the cabinet ministers. I like to think that the legion reps were yokels taken in by wining and dining cabinet ministers.

As for universal support, I recall the advice passed around the unit that you should get your claim in before the NVC because no one liked the lump sum idea. 

It is still quite academic as there is as yet no changes and a committee could study this for a few years to come.


----------



## Danjanou

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Branch service officers are quite excellent   I had amazing help from them. I think there is a certain "star struck" behaviour when the provincial and national command hob knob with the cabinet ministers. I like to think that the legion reps were yokels taken in by wining and dining cabinet ministers.



Having met some of the high priced help at Provincial and Dominion conventions I think you're insulting yokels there.  8)

Re service officers some are excellent, others meh. My Branch one is ok and the District one is very motivated and knows his stuff. Both are crusty old Vets though. In between the Zone one is a never served who seems to think his job description is to stand up at meetings (the few he shows up for) and say "no report."  :


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Now, when the NVC & the 'Budman's recommendations/costings come up in Question Period, the answer will be "we welcome the 'Budman's input as we comprehensively review the NVC".


This from the Minister this afternoon after the release of the report:


> .... "I would like to offer my thanks to the Veterans Ombudsman for his ongoing work on this important file," said Minister Fantino. "His reports highlight how the assistance and services delivered through the New Veterans Charter are providing real and meaningful support to Veterans and their families. The recommendations will also serve as an important starting point for the upcoming parliamentary review." ....








I'm shocked, SHOCKED .....

My  :2c: - post review, we'll only see changes that cost little or no bucks.  Big $ needed for change = ain't happening.  I'll be glad to be proven wrong.


----------



## McG

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The main reason for the NVC was money though. Bean counters where nosing around Ottawa saying the cost of supporting veterans would be greater than prosecuting the war and that this was unacceptable.


Was it "bean counters" in '05 or the Legion in '06?


			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> In 06, the government was nowhere near as obsessive about spending - indeed they were quite profligate.  I think it likely that saving money was not the defining factor in the decision to adopt the NVC....


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... be aware: a *fair* system will be tough to get past Finance and the Treasury Board.


*SO* true.

And a reminder of how at least some in TB felt in 2010 when Pat Stogran was the Vets 'Budman ....


> .... Col. Stogran said the root of the problem is that Veterans Affairs bureaucrats are keeping political ministers in the dark about the scope of the problems facing returning soldiers and are refusing to push for more money from powerful central departments like Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office .... *"I was told by a senior Treasury Board analyst, who shall remain nameless, that it is in the government's best interest to have soldiers killed overseas rather than wounded because the liability is shorter term."* ....


----------



## Grapeshot

On one hand the Minister wants to review the charter, while on the other hand his government is appealing recent BC Court allowing the class action lawsuit to go forward: 

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-government-to-appeal-decision-allowing-veterans-to-fight-for-benefits/article14662499/

I think that Fantino will allow some tinkering around the margins, however, lump sum payments are nonnegotiable in the minds of this government. In my view, the lifetime payments vs lump sum awards are the central issue with the New Veterans Charter. 

The government is not going to change their opinion unless they are forced to by either a court ruling or public opinion. The former be dragged through the courts for years, while the latter option could possibly be implemented as early as the next election! Make this an issue with serving MPs and potential candidates for your federal ridings.


----------



## Rifleman62

See att PDF which indicates the Vet organizations who are a party to this.

http://www.ncva-cnaac.ca/
*
Government's Failure to Implement Plan of Action on Reforming New Veterans Charter Violates Social Covenant Owed to Canadian Veterans and Their Families*

OTTAWA, Oct. 3, 2013 /CNW/ - The National Council of Veteran Associations, consisting of sixty member organizations and representing a wide cross-section of the veterans' community, came out today in support of the essential findings of the Veterans Ombudsman's Office, which issued a comprehensive report this week in relation to the need to reform the New Veterans Charter.

Brian Forbes, Chairman of NCVA, noted that the report, which calls for urgent action, correctly recognizes the appropriate priorities for immediate revision of the Charter in its focus on three key transition issues:

- the financial instability and decreased standard of living caused by reduced post military release income and insufficient financial support after the age of 65 for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans.

- the limitations in vocational rehabilitation and educational funding which can affect second career aspirations and employment options.

- inadequate support to address difficult family environment scenarios as a consequence of military service.

"The Ombudsman's evidence-based actuarial study has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt the specific shortcomings that exist in the Charter today," Mr. Forbes said.

He pointed out that when the Charter was enacted in 2006, the Government declared that this legislation was a "Living Charter" and made a formal commitment to the veterans' community that, as gaps and inequities were identified, immediate remedial action would be taken to address these deficiencies.

"The Government has failed to fulfill this commitment with regard to a significant number of substantive issues, impacting on the compensation benefits of disabled veterans in violation of the social covenant that the Canadian people owe to our veterans and their families," he said.

NCVA has consistently demanded over the last number of years that Veterans Affairs Canada implement an overall plan of action to fulfill its commitment in relation to not only the New Veterans Charter, but also to seriously disabled veterans and health care reform.

"In accordance with the fundamental conclusions of the Veterans Ombudsman's report, it remains NCVA's position that, notwithstanding the ostensible economic constraints facing the country, the seriously disabled veteran should be given immediate priority in the implementation of the first phase of a VAC plan of action for legislative reform," Mr. Forbes said.  "There is no higher obligation on Veterans Affairs Canada and the veterans' community than the responsibility to address the needs and requirements of seriously disabled veterans and their families."

He added that, although NCVA fully endorses the general thrust of the Ombudsman's report, it would have preferred that the Ombudsman's office had adopted the more beneficial recommendations of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (2009-2010) in relation to strengthening the compensation and income security provisions of the Charter.

It has been NCVA's longstanding contention that any VAC plan of action should include the remedial measures contained in the Advisory Group and Parliamentary Committee reports (see Appendix I) so as to optimally address the deficiencies in the Charter as precisely identified by the Veterans Ombudsman's report.

In NCVA's view, immediate implementation of a comprehensive course of action to legislative Charter reform pursuant to these recommendations would represent an important step to meeting the controversy surrounding the Lump Sum Disability Award through the proposed enhancements of the complementary benefit and income support programs in the current legislation.

"We have encouraged the new Minister, Mr. Fantino, and his predecessors, to 'get out in front' of the significant criticism of the Charter with such a plan of action, and not wait for the outcome of the current class action lawsuit (Equitas), and the pending Parliamentary Standing Committee review anticipated this fall," Mr. Forbes said.

"We do commend the Minister for his immediate commitment upon receipt of the Ombudsman's report, to the initiation of a review of the New Veterans Charter, with particular emphasis on 'the most seriously injured, support for families, and the delivery of programs by VAC,'" he added, "However, in our judgement, these proposed reforms have been sufficiently studied and analyzed over the last number of years such that the gaps and voids have been readily identified by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, the Special Needs Advisory Group, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and now the Veterans Ombudsman's office."

"In our considered opinion, it is long overdue for VAC to become proactive, and implement remedial legislation to address these well established concerns and live up to its obligation under the social covenant to Canada's veterans and their dependants.   For a Government that professes to support our military, the lack of substantive action to reform the New Veterans Charter is truly unacceptable, and represents a betrayal of the Government's commitment to the veterans' community," he said.

APPENDIX I

THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER ADVISORY GROUP, THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORT AND THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF VETERAN ASSOCIATIONS RE THE INCOME SECURITY AND COMPENSATION PROVISIONS OF THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER.

    the Earnings Loss Benefit should be increased to 100% of pre-release income and in relation to permanently incapacitated veterans, be paid for life (not terminated at 65 as is currently the case).   In addition, the projected career earnings of a Canadian Armed Forces member should be employed as the standard for the payment of the Earnings Loss Benefit.   In this context, VAC should adopt the approach utilized by the Canadian Courts in assessing the concept of "future loss of income" which specifically addresses the projected lifetime earnings loss in a personal injury claim.

    the SISIP (Service Income Security Insurance Plan) Long Term Disability Program should be eliminated with respect to service related disabilities to eradicate the insurance culture constraints presently contained in the New Veterans Charter.   It is to be noted that, at the time of the enactment of the New Veterans Charter, VAC committed that, as a fundamental pre-condition to the passage of the legislation that the SISIP program would be eliminated as soon as possible so as to remove the restrictions that were inherent to the overall income replacement program.

    the restrictions and complexities of the Permanent Impairment Allowance guidelines should be addressed so as to allow greater numbers of disabled veterans to qualify for appropriate levels of entitlement for this important allowance.

    the Lump Sum Disability Award should be increased commensurate with the general damages paid by the Canadian Courts.   At this point in time, the differential would be approximately $50,000.00, and it remains the view of NCVA that there is no justification for a lower amount being paid to a disabled veteran who is severely injured in the service of his country.

    the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance concept founded under the Pension Act should be incorporated into the New Veterans Charter.   This allowance has traditionally addressed the impact of the disabilities suffered by 100% veteran pensioners with reference to their difficulty to cope with their overall incapacity.   The introduction of EIA to the New Veterans Charter would augment the limitations of the Permanent Impairment Allowance, particularly in the circumstance where a disabled veteran confronts the ravages of age.

    educational benefits should be expanded to bolster the rehabilitation provisions of the Charter so as to address the vocational and occupational constraints faced by many returning veterans with service related disabilities.

    the discrimination that currently exists with reference to specific classes of reservists, particularly those that are seriously disabled, should be eliminated in the New Veterans Charter and related insurance coverage with particular regard to income replacement programs and relevant SISIP provisions.

    In order to recognize the care giving requirements that many disabled veterans confront to cope with their incapacities, the Attendance Allowance provisions of the Pension Act should be added to the New Veterans Charter in recognition of the financial costs faced by many families in this context.

    the Charter should acknowledge that veterans with dependants should receive a higher level of compensation either through the augmentation of the Lump Sum Disability Award or an increase in the Earnings Loss Benefit for such veterans and their families.

[Underlining reflects the more beneficial proposals supported by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the National Council of Veteran Associations as distinct from the recommendations set out in the new Veterans Ombudsman's report.]

SOURCE National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
For further information:

The Recommendations of the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, the Parliamentary Committee Report and the National Council of Veteran Associations follow in Appendix I.  For more information, please contact Communications at 1-877-60MEDIA, visit ncva-cnaac.ca or e-mail ncva@waramps.ca.


----------



## Lightguns

Sounds like the minister is continuing to use that decision making ability so well developed in Caledonia during his time as OPP top cop. Of course there is a lack of innocent by standers to arrest this time.


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the Vets 'Budman on Earnings Loss Benefit:  why is it settled under SISISP, but not under NVC?


> Many of you have contacted my Office recently concerning Earnings Loss Benefit for Veterans who are under the New Veterans Charter. I know from your calls that some of you think that my office has not been pursuing this issue with enough vigour, so let me tell you what we have done.
> 
> (....)
> 
> my team and I have never stopped pursuing this issue on your behalf with Veterans Affairs Canada. In fact, we have emphasized the need to address the issue on many occasions. Particularly, we have emphasized the importance for the Department to keep you in the loop about what it intends to do concerning Earnings Loss Benefit harmonization for New Veterans Charter Veterans.
> 
> I believe that it is only fair for Veterans Affairs Canada to be upfront with you on this matter. You need to know if the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If it is ‘no’, why is it ‘no’ for Veterans under the New Veterans Charter, but not for Veterans under SISIP LTD?
> 
> (....)
> 
> The week before Veterans’ Week, I spoke about this matter with Minister Fantino. I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to my concern on your behalf. I want you to know that I am following up with his officials to ensure that your position is understood and that your voice is heard.
> 
> In the interest of fairness, this issue needs to be resolved quickly...and it needs to be resolved in your favour ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the Info-machine ....


> The Honourable Julian Fantino, Minister of Veterans Affairs, today made his inaugural appearance before the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs since his appointment as Minister in July. Before committee, Minister Fantino reiterated the Government’s support for a comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, including all the enhancements that have been made to it to date, with a special focus placed on the most seriously injured, support for families and the delivery of programs by Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> During his appearance, the Minister asked the Committee to consult with Veterans and other key stakeholders on options for how the New Veterans Charter could clearly define and demonstrate the Government of Canada’s relationship with Canadian Veterans.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The comprehensive review of the New Veterans Charter, by legislators and with input from Veterans, their family members, public officials, the Veterans Ombudsman and the Veterans stakeholder community, serves as a key forum to find responsible changes to improve the already robust systems of support in place to help Canada’s Veterans ....


.... and from CBC.ca


> Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino has asked a House of Commons committee to spell out precisely what kind of social and legal obligation Canada has to its soldiers.
> 
> The issue is at the heart of a class-action lawsuit underway in B.C., where veterans of the Afghan war say they are being discriminated against by Ottawa's new benefits system.
> 
> The Conservatives, who bill themselves as champions of Canadian soldiers, faced intense criticism last summer when federal lawyers filed their defence in the court case.
> 
> Justice Department attorneys argued Canada has no extraordinary obligation to care for wounded and broken veterans, despite pledges of previous governments dating back to the First World War.
> 
> Fantino wants MPs to define what Canada's shared duty and responsibility should be for possible inclusion in the veterans charter ....


----------



## Teager

> "The work our Government does each day to serve Canadian Veterans can be called many things: duty, responsibility, commitment, social contract, sacred obligation or covenant. It is all of those things,"  said Minister Fantino. "Our Government is committed to ensuring that we give Canada's Veterans the clarity they have asked for. As part of the comprehensive review, I have asked the Committee to determine how best we can state our commitment to Canada's Veterans, and what is the best format for doing so."



http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1264339/government-of-canada-focused-on-results-through-comprehensive-review-of-new-veterans-charter

Seems pretty clear to me. I guess the government needs more clarity on the clarity.


----------



## Szczep

Isn't it nice. They will study it again: how many years will this one take?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The only live person I can get on the phone today is a commissionaire in PEI. 

Voicemails are full, or not turned on.

Emails are going undelivered or coming back with circular email messages.

"This is Y. I'm not taking emails right now, contact X"

Contact X and get "This is X. I'm not taking emails right now, contact Y"



> "The work our Government does each day to serve Canadian Veterans can be called many things: duty, responsibility, commitment, social contract, sacred obligation or covenant. It is all of those things,"  said Minister Fantino.



Lying gluebag


----------



## Rifleman62

Hey, he's busy polishing his Police medals for the big swan to Europe for the D-Day 70th. Give him a break.

As usual there will be five times the VAC participants than Vets of any war/age let alone the Second World War.


----------



## Grapeshot

"Veterans Can Thank Me And Others For The SISIP Victory, Not the Courts, Says Conservative MP Laurie Hawn"

This Con MP is one of the biggest opponents against Veterans and a major promoter of the NVC!  Now he has the audacity to state that a veterans hard fought and won court battle is due in large part to him convincing the PM not to appeal the decision!   Really Laurie, I hope your head doesn't hurt too much from the spin your gang is attempting to put on this issue.  Further, where the hell were you when the government started the legal challenge in the case?

*Link removed in accordance with site policy*

If this one doesn't get your blood boiling, I don't know what will!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1264339/government-of-canada-focused-on-results-through-comprehensive-review-of-new-veterans-charter
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me. I guess the government needs more clarity on the clarity.


Seemed pretty clear last August, too:


> .... We will continue to listen to Veterans, and to work with partners who share our common goal of supporting those who put their lives on the line for Canada. 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.


----------



## Nemo888

Grapeshot said:
			
		

> "Veterans Can Thank Me And Others For The SISIP Victory, Not the Courts, Says Conservative MP Laurie Hawn"
> 
> This Con MP is one of the biggest opponents against Veterans and a major promoter of the NVC!  Now he has the audacity to state that a veterans hard fought and won court battle is due in large part to him convincing the PM not to appeal the decision!   Really Laurie, I hope your head doesn't hurt too much from the spin your gang is attempting to put on this issue.  Further, where the hell were you when the government started the legal challenge in the case?
> 
> *Link removed in accordance with site policy*
> 
> If this one doesn't get your blood boiling, I don't know what will!



Wow, he went there and got the t-shirt.


----------



## Teager

The Canadian Press 
Published Friday, February 14, 2014 11:48AM EST 
Share this story:

21
OTTAWA -- The NDP says the federal government is transferring veterans' medical records to the custody of a private American company.
MP Peter Stoffer says veterans seeking help will now have to wait while files are retrieved from a company called Iron Mountain Holdings.
He also says the government is closing what are known as treatment authorization centres, responsible for approving treatments needed by veterans.
Now, he says, that approval will have to come from a private company.
Stoffer says it is wrong to put medical files into the hands of a private, for-profit firm.
He says it would mean delays for vets who would have to wait for their records to be retrieved, then passed on through Veterans Affairs.
He also said a private firm shouldn't be deciding whether vets can get treatments they need.
"I find this absolutely unconscionable," he said. "What the Conservative government is now doing is taking what was a very good public-service work done by dedicated employees for many, many years and turning all that work over to the private sector ... with no consultation no discussion."
The Harper government has been harshly criticized in recent weeks over its moves to close some Veterans Affairs offices.
Veterans Affairs Canada said the decision to close nine locations was based on declining use. It said veterans will be handled through nearby Service Canada offices.


----------



## dapaterson

One source of the story above: http://www.680news.com/2014/02/14/vets-medical-records-to-be-held-by-private-american-based-firm-ndp/


Teager: It's best to post a link to the article as well; although some links do go stale over time, it's best to give credit where credit is due.


----------



## Teager

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One source of the story above: http://www.680news.com/2014/02/14/vets-medical-records-to-be-held-by-private-american-based-firm-ndp/
> 
> 
> Teager: It's best to post a link to the article as well; although some links do go stale over time, it's best to give credit where credit is due.



Sorry about that was posting from my iPhone and forgot the link. Thanks for posting it though.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> The Canadian Press
> Published Friday, February 14, 2014 11:48AM EST
> Share this story:
> 
> OTTAWA -- The NDP says the federal government is transferring veterans' medical records to the custody of a private American company.
> MP Peter Stoffer says veterans seeking help will now have to wait while files are retrieved from a company called Iron Mountain Holdings.
> He also says the government is closing what are known as treatment authorization centres, responsible for approving treatments needed by veterans.
> Now, he says, that approval will have to come from a private company ....



And here's what the department has to say ....


> With more than 1,200 Canadian employees, Iron Mountain Canada is a long-standing partner of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) along with several other federal departments and agencies.
> 
> VAC has engaged Iron Mountain Canada for file storage services since 2008. Iron Mountain Canada is a recognized leader in delivering file storage services.
> 
> Recently, VAC extended its contractual agreement with Iron Mountain Canada. Under this new agreement, there is no change to the services that Veterans receive.
> 
> Iron Mountain Canada does not adjudicate Veteran services and support. As always, Veterans will continue to receive direct support from Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> Veterans' information continues to be securely housed and maintained in Canada by Canadians.


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And here's what the department has to say....


So you're suggesting that a sitting Parliamentarian may have been....._loose_......with facts, in order to sensationalize an issue?  

Shocked. Shocked I am. 


[There's really no need for the Claude Rains/Humphrey Bogart pic, is there.   ]


----------



## armyvern

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> [There's really no need for the Claude Rains/Humphrey Bogart pic, is there.   ]



Your age is showing.   >


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Your age is showing.   >


bitch...I mean, I just watched _Casablanca_ again last night.....so the reference was fresh in my enfeebled brain cells.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So you're suggesting that a sitting Parliamentarian may have been....._loose_......with facts, in order to sensationalize an issue?


Just sharing for people way smarter than me to see (a large cohort, I admit) and read between the lines of.


----------



## Teager

Anyone know anything about the treatment centers and what company is now taking over? Or is this another false/misleading part in the article?


----------



## Nemo888

http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/blog/?p=944&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-veterans-shoot-themselves-in-the-foot-while-government-hits-them-over-the-head

← `CANADIAN VETERANS ADVOCACY RESPONDS TO FEDERAL BUDGET“
How veterans shoot themselves in the foot while government hits them over the head
Posted on February 24, 2014 by Mike L Blais CD	
The timing of this article and the implications are very interesting as it is these very groups, the Royal Canadian Legion and the many veterans organizations they have united under the Veterans Consultation Group who will soon stand before parliamentary committee and champion NOT the standards established in blood, sacrifice and valour by generations of valiant canadians, but a Bump to the Chump to 350 k, a standard set by the Ontario workplace standards, not the Sacred Obligation.
Your membership to these organizations perpetuates this injustice because their words negate yours. 

Think about it. Then if you are a member of one of these organizations, contact your president, ask them why they are standing against the wounded quest for justice, quest for the same standards that I and thousands of pre NVC veterans have been awarded a as consequence of our lifetime of PAIN and SUFFERING on behalf of the nation.

Mike – Prez – CVA
How veterans shoot themselves in the foot while government hits them over the head
There is little doubt as to the good intentions of most veterans’ organizations in providing quotes to government. However, government has clearly been quite astute at using veterans’ good intentions to further a PR war that does little but says much about caring for veterans.

The Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright
Media relations teams in the minister’s and Prime Minister’s Office as well as Veterans Affairs Canada have spun facts to portray government as doing more than it actually is. Take, for example, the $2-billion waved about in 2011 as government’s claimed commitment to ‘enhance’ the New Veterans Charter, the controversial veterans’ legislation. Closer examination revealed that $2-billion was actually $40-million annually over 50 years.
By SEAN BRUYEA |
Published: Monday, 02/24/2014 12:00 am EST
The current government has come under intense criticism for failing veterans while doggedly pursuing a relentless public relations campaign claiming the opposite. Sadly, veterans’ organizations have been unwittingly co-opted into this PR war, effectively supporting government propaganda.
 Media relations teams in the minister’s and Prime Minister’s Office as well as Veterans Affairs Canada have spun facts to portray government as doing more than it actually is. Take, for example, the $2-billion waved about in 2011 as government’s claimed commitment to “enhance” the New Veterans Charter, the controversial veterans’ legislation. Closer examination revealed that $2-billion was actually $40-million annually over 50 years.(_continued at link)_


----------



## Fishbone Jones

If you're going to cut and paste articles, at least read & edit them before hitting the button.


----------

