# Vets Affairs policies / problems / solutions



## ballz (6 Jan 2015)

Hello all,

I recently joined the Libertarian Party of Canada. They are currently discussing Veterans Affairs issues and some people are looking to me for answers because they know I'm a CAF member. I have never had to deal with VAC (thankfully), so I don't have much to offer them, other than to speak to people that have had to.

The one thing I have proposed to them, shamelessly stolen from Mr. Campbell, is that the NVC should have been grandfathered in instead of the government changing the terms the troops were fighting under, while they were fighting. They were pretty receptive to this as they understand the government entered into a contract and must honour it. One thing I have trouble with is trying to think for myself what is "fair" compensation for someone who loses a limb? Or suffers permanent brain damage? Etc...

What I am wondering is, what other things would you bring up to a political party looking to form a Vets Affairs policy? Other than having those enrolled prior to 2006 fall under the Pension Act, what about those who enrolled after? What are the biggest issues with the New Veterans Charter and how can they be fixed? What are you experiences? What would a "new" NVC look like if you wrote it?

Does anybody know where I can find the list of recommendations for changes to the New Veterans Charter that was proposed by the VA Committee?

Looking for all your thoughts and dialogue. Cheers.


----------



## Tibbson (6 Jan 2015)

A couple of points from my own way to looking at things, and like you I've thankfully never had to deal with VAC yet.

1)  The Govt recently made it quite clear they did not believe they had entered into any "contract" or promise with those who serve.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-don-t-have-social-contract-ottawa-says-in-lawsuit-response-1.2577053  I'm sure even if there was something written down they would still find a way to weasle out of it like they did with the severence issue.

2)  I'd like to see, as a minimum, the compensation amounts be at least on par with civilian WCB levels.  As I understand now a worker at a Ford plant in London who loses an arm receives more then a service member injured overseas.  If I'm wrong on this one I'll gladly acknowledge so to those who may know more on this aspect.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2015)

My wife has had years of aggravation dealing with VAC, and I can tell you much of the issue is institutional in nature, with multiple "offices" which don't seem to communicate with each other, difficult to interpret policies and ultimately lazy and incompetent civil servants who have no investment in the process and no accountability if they (to use two real life examples) don't look at the "client's" file (they claimed to my wife's face there was no record of an event; fortunately she had a paper copy of her own file and pulled the appropriate record) or say to her face she wasn't in the office at a certain time/date when she can call witnesses in the office who place her there. Of course the continual holding up of the process has caused great financial distress as well.

Yes, I am very angry about this.

The ultimate solution will be to redo the legislation so it is easy to interpret and implement, and put in a high level of accountability in the department, so "client's" are not helpless pawns in a game but can demand answers and get service in a timely manner.


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The ultimate solution will be to redo the legislation so it is easy to interpret and implement, and put in a high level of accountability in the department, so "client's" are not helpless pawns in a game but can demand answers and get service in a timely manner.



Do you think having Vets Affairs fall under the DND as suggested by Romeo Dallaire would help at all?

I have two projects to do for the party, one is about the size / scope / budget of our military, and now I've volunteered to take on the Vets Affairs issue and brief the leadership on it. Not because I know enough about Vets Affairs, but because everyone else is woefully inadequate both in their understanding/experience of the military and in the resources they can use (aka I can ask real vets that have gone through the process and back very easily), and I felt an obligation to veterans to step up to the plate on their behalf since I felt best-suited to the task compared to the others.

I'm still in the process of finding out more how it would look if ran by the DND. Personally I have found healthcare for serving members to be subpar, so I can't see how merging the two departments would improve it. But, since the party seems to agree that one of the legitimate tasks of government is national defence, they also can logically conclude that the government has a responsibility to look after veterans who are injured while fulfilling that task. The party is rather split on the size of the military required, I am in the camp of a larger military being necessary, and after speaking to the leader Tim Moen over a few beers during Christmas, I think he will be too. I have to wonder if a viable solution isn't to have uniformed members directly dealing with Veterans Affairs. This would mean everyone speaking the same language, and the injured member would be more aware of the proper channels in resolving an issue. This could make accountability much more possible, no?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2015)

I do not think that DND should absorb Veterans Affairs, if that is what you are suggesting.  DND should concentrate on treating those who are serving, not those who have left the Canadian Armed Forces.   Veterans Affairs should deal with all Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP retirees who need treatment.  In some cases, perhaps many, there needs to be dual coverage where one is transitioning from the CAF in Retirement/Release to Veterans Affairs.  Both Departments serve a different 'clientele'.  

One thing that we have seen fade from the CAF, has been our medical services.  Once upon a time there were fairly large Military Hospitals spread across the nation, which also served those veterans who required treatment and care.  Those days are long gone, as are most of those medical staffs.


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I do not think that DND should absorb Veterans Affairs, if that is what you are suggesting.



That's what Romeo Dallaire suggested... I haven't even come close to forming any kind of opinion yet. That's why I'm starting this thread...


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Jan 2015)

Veterans' Affairs would logically fall under DND as opposed to the CAF, and hence under the DM's purview. Do we really want to saddle him with another monster when he has trouble keeping a handle on procurement and logistics? Cripes, DND can't even buy winter boots, let alone major capital projects, with any degree of competence.


----------



## JS2218 (10 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> I recently joined the Libertarian Party of Canada. They are currently discussing Veterans Affairs issues and some people are looking to me for answers because they know I'm a CAF member. I have never had to deal with VAC (thankfully), so I don't have much to offer them, other than to speak to people that have had to.



First, I'd be careful of offering any sort of "opinion," analysis, guidance, whatever you want to call it that could in any way make it seem like you're criticizing the CAF, the government, or the chain of command. QR&Os and all that.

Second, I'm not sure what good a fringe party is going to do in the 2015 election. If you're right-wing and libertarian-minded, your vote and voice is much better placed with the existing Conservative Party. (Full disclosure: I don't mean anything negative in this. I've met and spoken with Jean-Serge Brisson and read his book. I just think that if you're looking to actually affect government policy, you should be formulating these ideas and getting them into the Minister's office.)



> Does anybody know where I can find the list of recommendations for changes to the New Veterans Charter that was proposed by the VA Committee?



Right here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6635229&File=9

And the Government's response: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6709993&File=0 (they're receptive to all of the committee's recommendations)


----------



## JS2218 (10 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Do you think having Vets Affairs fall under the DND as suggested by Romeo Dallaire would help at all?



This I would agree with. Veterans Affairs doesn't serve its "customers/clients" until they've left the CAF. Put differently, their only clients are former CAF members (and some RCMP officers too). I would structure the unified department under one Minister. An Associate Minister would be in charge of the Veterans Affairs branch and would report to the Minister. There would be two Deputy Ministers: one for VA and one for the CAF. DND should be slimmed down/significantly restructured anyway to allow for the largest possible military and the least amount of civilians.

Another option, if the focus for VAC should be strictly "treating" individuals who are mentally or physically broken: put them under the Ministry of Health.


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2015)

JS2218 said:
			
		

> First, I'd be careful of offering any sort of "opinion," analysis, guidance, whatever you want to call it that could in any way make it seem like you're criticizing the CAF, the government, or the chain of command. QR&Os and all that.



Sorry, but I'm so tired of hearing the paranoia and hysteria surrounding political activities as a CAF member. People talk about how you can't join political parties, can't volunteer, can't talk about this and that, can't sign petitions about anything, and it's all a crock of shit. I can openly criticize the CAF all I want in a private setting, and the only restriction about political parties is that you can't have an "active" role. I doubt very much anybody would try to make the case that lending my 2 cents to a political party, in private, that I am a paid member of, is openly criticizing the CAF or otherwise contravening any of the regs that I've seen, and if they did they would be unsuccessful.



			
				JS2218 said:
			
		

> Second, I'm not sure what good a fringe party is going to do in the 2015 election. If you're right-wing and libertarian-minded, your vote and voice is much better placed with the existing Conservative Party. (Full disclosure: I don't mean anything negative in this. I've met and spoken with Jean-Serge Brisson and read his book. I just think that if you're looking to actually affect government policy, you should be formulating these ideas and getting them into the Minister's office.)



The CPC does not represent my views or values. In fact, they are in many ways in complete contradiction to them, as are the other mainstream parties. Fringe parties will remain fringe parties if everyone decides that they only have three options to choose from and that their own value system isn't worth bringing to the table. At this point, I would prefer to "waste" a vote than vote for the CPC. Recently, the LPoC has grown exponentially in membership and financially, has matured into offering viable solutions (instead of utopian ideas that they had in the past) and is well on its way to fielding more candidates than the Green Party due to some good work being done by some pretty savvy people. I'm more than happy to toss my vote their way. Will they make a splash in 2015? No, probably not, but can make a ripple.



			
				JS2218 said:
			
		

> Right here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6635229&File=9
> 
> And the Government's response: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6709993&File=0 (they're receptive to all of the committee's recommendations)



Thanks. As far as I know, the government has not adopted any of the recommendations which is something Vets advocate groups have been critical of?


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2015)

JS2218 said:
			
		

> This I would agree with. Veterans Affairs doesn't serve its "customers/clients" until they've left the CAF. Put differently, their only clients are former CAF members (and some RCMP officers too). I would structure the unified department under one Minister. An Associate Minister would be in charge of the Veterans Affairs branch and would report to the Minister. There would be two Deputy Ministers: one for VA and one for the CAF. DND should be slimmed down/significantly restructured anyway to allow for the largest possible military and the least amount of civilians.
> 
> Another option, if the focus for VAC should be strictly "treating" individuals who are mentally or physically broken: put them under the Ministry of Health.



Having two DMs is along the lines of what Romeo Dallaire was suggesting I believe.

Having them fall under the Ministry of Health wouldn't work with the LPoC platform. The LPoC would repeal the Canada Health Act and give the power back to the provinces to raise their own revenues and administer their own healthcare, instead of the centralized sham of a system we have now that undermines the Constitution. If the province wants to allow private alternatives, they would be finally be able to.


----------



## Tibbson (10 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's what Romeo Dallaire suggested... I haven't even come close to forming any kind of opinion yet. That's why I'm starting this thread...



Is that you Gen Dallaire?  Why not use your own name when you post?


----------



## Tibbson (10 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Fringe parties will remain fringe parties if everyone decides that they only have three options to choose from and that their own value system isn't worth bringing to the table.



And if people ever do decide they have more than three viable options to vote for we will end up with a revolving government like they end up with in places in Europe where the controlling party is the one who can form the biggest coalition among the other losers because nobody gets a majority.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2015)

I personally don't see that VAC should be under or part of DND, since the role is to help people who are no longer part of the Forces.

If anything it should really be a clearing house for Veterans to get help from services which are already out there under various provincial health ministries, and to advocate for new or better services if the existing ones are not adequate. I might also think along the idea of having some sort of mandatory defined benefits insurance pool for CF members rather than a "black box" of bureaucrats making decisions on what and how much "help" they are willing to offer. While a pool might seem more cold hearted than the current system, knowing what you are entitled to and being able to access it with a reasonably transparent benefits application system would probably help more people faster and with an early resolution than the millstone we have around our necks now.

I do applause the fact that you are willing to work with a political party that supports your views, while I consider myself to be a small l libertarian, my past experiences with the party is akin to trying to herd cats, which is why I pragmatically support the CPC in an effort to at least get half a loaf, and look for ways to advance the ideal using the idea of "Libertarianism as a social movement" rather than a  political movement. Just remember to stay within your lanes according to the QR & O's WRT political involvement.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jan 2015)

I don't think VAC should be part of DND. Why add another layer of bumbling bureaucracy to an already dysfunctional system?


----------



## JS2218 (10 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I'm so tired of hearing the paranoia and hysteria surrounding political activities as a CAF member. People talk about how you can't join political parties, can't volunteer, can't talk about this and that, can't sign petitions about anything, and it's all a crock of crap. I can openly criticize the CAF all I want in a private setting, and the only restriction about political parties is that you can't have an "active" role. I doubt very much anybody would try to make the case that lending my 2 cents to a political party, in private, that I am a paid member of, is openly criticizing the CAF or otherwise contravening any of the regs that I've seen, and if they did they would be unsuccessful.



I'd like you to bring this up with the bureaucrats at Chief Review Services and see what they think of your interpretation. Believe me: I know the rules, but I also know that there are certain people who are just itching to throw the book at any conservative or libertarian they can.



> Thanks. As far as I know, the government has not adopted any of the recommendations which is something Vets advocate groups have been critical of?



Well the committee report was only tabled in October 2014... These things take time to work themselves out. What's important is that the government has committed to adopting all of the committee's recommendations.


----------



## JS2218 (10 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Having two DMs is along the lines of what Romeo Dallaire was suggesting I believe.
> 
> Having them fall under the Ministry of Health wouldn't work with the LPoC platform. The LPoC would repeal the Canada Health Act and give the power back to the provinces to raise their own revenues and administer their own healthcare, instead of the centralized sham of a system we have now that undermines the Constitution. If the province wants to allow private alternatives, they would be finally be able to.



Philosophically, I'm all for decentralizing as much of the federal government as possible, including abolishing Health Canada/PHAC, except for a very small contingent that would provide an advisory/coordinating role between all the provinces and the federal government. Practically, it would never happen. The Liberals and NDPers love the unionized workers that work there, and if the Conservatives ever tried they'd be accused of "dismantling Medicare" or something to that effect.


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Is that you Gen Dallaire?  Why not use your own name when you post?



???



			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> And if people ever do decide they have more than three viable options to vote for we will end up with a revolving government like they end up with in places in Europe where the controlling party is the one who can form the biggest coalition among the other losers because nobody gets a majority.



That would be a great discussion (for another topic, mind you) that I would be interested in. You seem to be chastising me, personally, for the weakness inherent to a democracy.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I do applause the fact that you are willing to work with a political party that supports your views, while I consider myself to be a small l libertarian, my past experiences with the party is akin to trying to herd cats, which is why I pragmatically support the CPC in an effort to at least get half a loaf, and look for ways to advance the ideal using the idea of "Libertarianism as a social movement" rather than a  political movement. Just remember to stay within your lanes according to the QR & O's WRT political involvement.



I only recently joined, but its sort of under "new" management. The current leadership is leading the party to be less extreme and coming up with policies that are realistic (15% flat income tax rate with a $17,000 BPE instead of say... burning down all federal government buildings and living a utopia), knowing that all this anarchist utopia stuff is both a pipe dream and never going get the party taken seriously. There's still some folk trying to pull the party in all directions but, given the membership numbers, as soon as the party "matured" a bit more people jumped on board (including myself).



			
				JS2218 said:
			
		

> I'd like you to bring this up with the bureaucrats at Chief Review Services and see what they think of your interpretation. Believe me: I know the rules, but I also know that there are certain people who are just itching to throw the book at any conservative or libertarian they can.



Being as stubborn as I am and usually learning things the hard way, I'd be happy to tell a few bureaucrats to go piss up a tree. But what I don't get about your statement is that if it's not against the rules, what good would throwing the book do? :dunno:



			
				JS2218 said:
			
		

> Philosophically, I'm all for decentralizing as much of the federal government as possible, including abolishing Health Canada/PHAC, except for a very small contingent that would provide an advisory/coordinating role between all the provinces and the federal government. Practically, it would never happen. The Liberals and NDPers love the unionized workers that work there, and if the Conservatives ever tried they'd be accused of "dismantling Medicare" or something to that effect.



It's funny. I speak to people about the LPoC's policies and I often hear "I'm all for it, but it'll never happen." This is all the more reason I think the LPoC can have influence eventually, since everyone seems to be "all for this" and "all for that." Anywho, again, best for another discussion...


----------



## ballz (10 Jan 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If anything it should really be a clearing house for Veterans to get help from services which are already out there under various provincial health ministries, and to advocate for new or better services if the existing ones are not adequate.



Can you elaborate on this idea? I can't see how Vets stuff can be delegated down to the provinces since national defence is a federal responsibility and the vets are all over the country. If done provincially it would seem that Vet A gets good healthcare in province A but Vet B with the same issues is getting crap in province B.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I might also think along the idea of having some sort of mandatory defined benefits insurance pool for CF members rather than a "black box" of bureaucrats making decisions on what and how much "help" they are willing to offer. While a pool might seem more cold hearted than the current system, knowing what you are entitled to and being able to access it with a reasonably transparent benefits application system would probably help more people faster and with an early resolution than the millstone we have around our necks now.



I was thinking that dealing with Vets Affairs was much like filing an insurance claim? Lose 50% of hearing, get x benefits (hearing aid paid for, etc). Am I greatly mistaken?


----------



## JS2218 (11 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Being as stubborn as I am and usually learning things the hard way, I'd be happy to tell a few bureaucrats to go piss up a tree. But what I don't get about your statement is that if it's not against the rules, what good would throwing the book do? :dunno:



I agree with you that every person - military or non-military - should take part in their democracy by supporting and helping political parties. I've been through the ridiculous witch hunt process. They know that the only QR&O even remotely related to "political activities" is in chapter 19, which only says that *a member of the Reg Force* can't take an "active role" in a political party. So the book they'll throw at you is the DAOD on conflict of interest, which is much more vague and wide-reaching to say that ANY potential conflict of interest must be reported to them. They will conduct their witch hunt until you either a) cease your political activities; or b) resign from the CAF. It's shameful.


----------



## JS2218 (11 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> It's funny. I speak to people about the LPoC's policies and I often hear "I'm all for it, but it'll never happen." This is all the more reason I think the LPoC can have influence eventually, since everyone seems to be "all for this" and "all for that." Anywho, again, best for another discussion...



It's game theory. The "average" Canadian voter is located at the centre of a Cartesian plane. The Libertarians are located at the bottom of that plane, somewhere on the left-right spectrum depending on their views on government intervention, free markets, social issues, etc. The only way you could hope to take power would be to a) shift the party to the centre of the plane; or b) take votes from conservatives. IMO, your best best would be trying to a) convince the Conservatives that democracy and the conservative movement would be well served by having at least one Libertarian in Parliament (like having the Green Party there is "good" for the environmental movement); then b) convincing the conservatives to NOT run a candidate in a winnable conservative riding, so that the Libertarian could win. But this is straying off topic from the purpose of your thread on vets' issues.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Can you elaborate on this idea? I can't see how Vets stuff can be delegated down to the provinces since national defence is a federal responsibility and the vets are all over the country. If done provincially it would seem that Vet A gets good healthcare in province A but Vet B with the same issues is getting crap in province B.



Since we are dealing with health care and health care is a provincial responsibility, then by rights it is up to the province to provide the treatment for a vet living there. The fact that different provinces do things differently makes the decision of where to release a bit more difficult, but that will be a factor with virtually every aspect of life outside of healthcare.



> I was thinking that dealing with Vets Affairs was much like filing an insurance claim? Lose 50% of hearing, get x benefits (hearing aid paid for, etc). Am I greatly mistaken?



While this is what is supposedly on offer, in real life you end up going through hoops of fire, and it seems in our own personal case that the burden of proof is on my wife (military records and doctor's reports notwithstanding), and they take their own sweet time in responding. The issue of dealing with multiple "offices" which never seem to communicate is also huge time waster, I suspect the real motivation is to simply wear the "client" down until they give up. It is a good thing I am geographically remote at the moment; the latest outrage is the new "case worker" refuses to discuss any issue that goes back further than 6 months (despite literally years of misinformation, miscommunications and errors on their part); that case worker should be looking for benefits of their own due to blunt trauma injury.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jan 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since we are dealing with health care and health care is a provincial responsibility, then by rights it is up to the province to provide the treatment for a vet living there. The fact that different provinces do things differently makes the decision of where to release a bit more difficult, but that will be a factor with virtually every aspect of life outside of healthcare.
> 
> While this is what is supposedly on offer, in real life you end up going through hoops of fire, and it seems in our own personal case that the burden of proof is on my wife (military records and doctor's reports notwithstanding), and they take their own sweet time in responding. The issue of dealing with multiple "offices" which never seem to communicate is also huge time waster, I suspect the real motivation is to simply wear the "client" down until they give up. It is a good thing I am geographically remote at the moment; the latest outrage is the new "case worker" refuses to discuss any issue that goes back further than 6 months (despite literally years of misinformation, miscommunications and errors on their part); that case worker should be looking for benefits of their own due to blunt trauma injury.....




That's the VAC motto.

Delay, Deny, Die.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jan 2015)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/us/iraq-veteran-now-a-west-point-professor-seeks-to-rein-in-disability-pay.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

An interesting view on things, definitely contrary to the battles we are seeing in Canada.  LCol Gade seems to be proposing something akin to the system we now have.


----------



## blacktriangle (12 Jan 2015)

Aren't Captains often employed at the Coy comd level in the US Army?

If he was injured in 2005, as a Capt/Maj, how did me make it to LCol (and continues to serve/teach?) without a leg? Is he now retired? Was he able to serve long enough to obtain his normal service pension?

While I do think some of what he says has merit, I don't think it's a blanket solution - especially for young, uneducated junior NCM's with no formal education or work experience outside the military.


----------



## Ludoc (12 Jan 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> If he was injured in 2005, as a Capt/Maj, how did me make it to LCol (and continues to serve/teach?) without a leg? Is he now retired? Was he able to serve long enough to obtain his normal service pension?



From the article: 





> Today he has a lightweight aluminum and carbon fiber prosthesis guided by microprocessors that has allowed him to return to active duty.


----------



## blacktriangle (12 Jan 2015)

Sorry I should clarify…is he still progressing as an Armor officer within the US Army or is he being given special accommodation to continue to serve? And by serve, I mean teaching at West Point - something that a 21 year old private with a high school education could not do. 

If he is allowed to deploy, and can get back in the hatch, that would change my mind - because the same option should be available to the young enlisted amputee. If that's not the case - then I don't think his circumstances reflect the average. If the LCol was a young kid with no legs and limited job prospects, he might appreciate the option of the disability payment a bit more.


----------



## ballz (13 Jan 2015)

I had a question via PM regarding the Libertarian stance on Vets Affairs. They were wondering if giving money to Vets Affairs went against the Libertarian concept of welfare (i.e. they oppose welfare programs paid for by the government)? They were also wondering "or is this something the party is trying to sort out."

I just wanted to clarify for anyone else that reads this, here is the response I gave them...



> No this doesn't really need any "sorting out" within the party and it doesn't go against the Libertarian concept of welfare.
> 
> Pretty much everyone recognizes that this was a business relationship and that Vets are not a welfare case at all, but instead a case of the government not honouring an agreement it ought to honour. The government had a contract with its employees which included pay, healthcare, etc, and as part of that compensation package it promised to look after them if they were hurt while doing their duty. The government is largely failing at that. Libertarians believe in honouring agreements, and as many have said within the party "how can we be expected to enforce contracts if we won't even uphold our own."
> 
> As pointed out by another poster, the government is currently fighting that there was any "contract." I think, regardless of what the courts decide, that there was an agreement made, even if only of the "handshake" nature. I believe even handshakes should be honoured.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jan 2015)

There is quite a difference between those who serve and put their lives on the line in service of the nation; and those who sit back and do nothing and want the nation to serve them.


----------



## ballz (13 Jan 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since we are dealing with health care and health care is a provincial responsibility, then by rights it is up to the province to provide the treatment for a vet living there. The fact that different provinces do things differently makes the decision of where to release a bit more difficult, but that will be a factor with virtually every aspect of life outside of healthcare.



As per the post above, although Vets Affairs deal with healthcare issues, I do believe that their healthcare being looked after is something the Federal government agreed to do in return for their service. Throwing the Vets to the Ministry of Health, or in the case that the LPoC is in power and throwing them to the *provincial* health systems, and giving them the same inadequate public healthcare that everyone else receives, and no compensation (i.e. You are no longer able to work for the rest of your life, you should be provided some sort of basic income in addition to the healthcare required) provided to overcome the fact that their ability to earn income has been, is really no different than doing nothing for them. They're getting the same thing a civilian would get in that instance.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> While this is what is supposedly on offer, in real life you end up going through hoops of fire, and it seems in our own personal case that the burden of proof is on my wife (military records and doctor's reports notwithstanding), and they take their own sweet time in responding. The issue of dealing with multiple "offices" which never seem to communicate is also huge time waster, I suspect the real motivation is to simply wear the "client" down until they give up. It is a good thing I am geographically remote at the moment; the latest outrage is the new "case worker" refuses to discuss any issue that goes back further than 6 months (despite literally years of misinformation, miscommunications and errors on their part); that case worker should be looking for benefits of their own due to blunt trauma injury.....



Does the whole "proving it is a service-related injury" cause problems for a lot of people? 

I understand that if I blow out my knee and tear my ACL/MCL/meniscus, I do a CF-98, and in 20 years if that CF-98 hasn't gone into the admin blackhole, then there is the proof of that injury in the CF-98. If I have no lost the use of my leg because the knee is toast, I would receive some sort of compensation.

However, in many cases, people serve 25-30 years, they break their bodies over the course of time, retire, and when they turn 50-60 all those things they did have caught up to them. There may be no CF-98s at all since there was never a major "injury," but the condition of one's back/knees/hips tells a different story. They receive no compensation because there is no "proof" there was a service-related injury?

Is the latter scenario a common problem for many?

Right now, we offer those who serve 20, 25 years their pension ASAP. I have to wonder if part of that retirement package at 20 or 25 years shouldn't be to include lifetime, "elevated" health coverage, paid for courtesy of the Federal government. If a doctor finds they need treatment for something, they could just show their doctor their insurance card and have it billed to the insurance company. No need for a Veterans Affairs claim or even a department.


----------



## ballz (13 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is quite a difference between those who serve and put their lives on the line in service of the nation; and those who sit back and do nothing and want the nation to serve them.



Not sure what you're getting at. While there is some back and forth in the party about the DND budget, I believe the party's stance will ultimately be to increase the budget. One thing is for sure, all members of the party wish to be wasting a lot less blood and treasure on military adventurism.


----------



## upandatom (24 Mar 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I do not think that DND should absorb Veterans Affairs, if that is what you are suggesting.  DND should concentrate on treating those who are serving, not those who have left the Canadian Armed Forces.   Veterans Affairs should deal with all Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP retirees who need treatment.  In some cases, perhaps many, there needs to be dual coverage where one is transitioning from the CAF in Retirement/Release to Veterans Affairs.  Both Departments serve a different 'clientele'.
> 
> One thing that we have seen fade from the CAF, has been our medical services.  Once upon a time there were fairly large Military Hospitals spread across the nation, which also served those veterans who required treatment and care.  Those days are long gone, as are most of those medical staffs.




DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER----

First- There is no coverage for a member that releases/retires from the military. Until the point that their new benefits kick in. I was called by VAC saying i was entitled. Then I attempted to call back and ask about them as i have three months with no extra benefits for assistance. They said they have no record of me being called, and they don't know what I was talking about. If a member releases from the military for whatever reason and leaves on good terms, they should be covered for a small while. 

Secondly- I think all civil jobs for DND have to start being accountable for their actions, or lack there of. The amount of laziness and inability to perform their duties as a civil servant is disgraceful. If a military member carried on with that they would be delegated to the BS mail run jobs. Whether those jobs are in VAC, Pension Services, or orderly room assistants. 

Number one statement-
Veterans Affairs Canada was established to provide injured veterans and members with assistance. Regardless of how much that assistance is, or what it is. The first answer should not always be no. The system was set up for us, not for the GoC to use as a tool to cut assistance.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Mar 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> I think all civil jobs for DND have to start being accountable for their actions, or lack there of. The amount of laziness and inability to perform their duties as a civil servant is disgraceful. If a military member carried on with that they would be delegated to the BS mail run jobs. Whether those jobs are in VAC, Pension Services, or orderly room assistants.



I do not agree, in DND in many HQs it is the civilians that keep things running when the military positions are off on PT, Admin, regimental birthdays, UN tours, courses and the 1000 other reasons that that military folk are absent from their load stations.  There are individuals and every HQ has them, the work to rule crowd but on the whole our civil servants are as dedicated as the military are.  I had the pleasure of supervising one lady so dedicated that I had to keep track of her overtime as she had a nasty habit of working herself to death for free.  They fill holes and provide the continuity that makes us military folk shine.


----------



## upandatom (24 Mar 2015)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I do not agree, in DND in many HQs it is the civilians that keep things running when the military positions are off on PT, Admin, regimental birthdays, UN tours, courses and the 1000 other reasons that that military folk are absent from their load stations.  There are individuals and every HQ has them, the work to rule crowd but on the whole our civil servants are as dedicated as the military are.  I had the pleasure of supervising one lady so dedicated that I had to keep track of her overtime as she had a nasty habit of working herself to death for free.  They fill holes and provide the continuity that makes us military folk shine.



Ill agree that there are civil servants that do an exceptional job, I am finding those few and far between now


----------



## Grunt_031 (24 Mar 2015)

> Ill agree that there are civil servants that do an exceptional job, I am finding those few and far between now



Same can be said about Military Members.


----------



## upandatom (25 Mar 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Does the whole "proving it is a service-related injury" cause problems for a lot of people?



With my documentation I submitted CF-98s, Witness statements, Med Chits (indicating why I was at MIR, why I was at after hours hospital) Ortho Surgeon statements, and physio statements from a Civilian and medical Physiotherapist as to what the diagnosis was, (Along with two MRI scans) indicating there was tear, and that the injury occurred during a military activity, and while on official duty. I was still told on the phone, "We cant go on those statements that it did occur during Active Military Duty and We use what our Professionals diagnose from reading your statement." Short Answer. Yes, and its possibly the most frustrating part. 

A military members body goes through a lot of wear and tear, bring that to over a 5-25 years. There are going to be many aches and pains compared to someone that works in a 9-5 their whole life.


----------



## upandatom (25 Mar 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> And if people ever do decide they have more than three viable options to vote for we will end up with a revolving government like they end up with in places in Europe where the controlling party is the one who can form the biggest coalition among the other losers because nobody gets a majority.



That might work here, our political system is a joke and no one is held accountable. Look at Wynne avoiding RCMP Questioning, Same thing happened with that cow from quebeckistan, outright violations of Canadians rights in Quebec stating they have to do business in that language. There are two official languages. 

We can go through and list for days about what is wrong with our political parties. Wont change a thing. 

Chances are VAC wont even change, we can bitch and moan and scream for it but until we as Canadians, Stand and unanimously vote against what the parties are doing, NOTHING will change.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (25 Mar 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> outright violations of Canadians rights in Quebec stating they have to do business in that language. There are two official languages.



Not to thread hi-jack but Quebec regularly uses the not-withstanding clause to get around that little issue.


----------



## Mediman14 (27 Mar 2015)

Just a thought.
  What if VAC was divided in itself- 1 part to deal with serving Members and the other dealing with our Vet's. I don't know the numbers of Serving Members vs Vets currently dealing with vac , just wondering if the application process and the deserving benefits would be faster? 

Thanks


----------



## dapaterson (27 Mar 2015)

Mediman14 said:
			
		

> Just a thought.
> What if VAC was divided in itself- 1 part to deal with serving Members and the other dealing with our Vet's. I don't know the numbers of Serving Members vs Vets currently dealing with vac , just wondering if the application process and the deserving benefits would be faster?
> 
> Thanks



Growing bureacracy to reduce bureaucratic delays seems somewhat counter-intuitive.

There are already issues with members transitioning from DND/CAF care to VAC.  This would add another layer of friction.


----------

