# Injured Vet pushing for overhaul on VAC



## Teager

Another vet fighting the system.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1130917-battle-continues-for-army-veteran


----------



## Szczep

It is amazing that they  (VAC) even accepted it as 'service related'!

They have no shame to treat veterans and serving members like this.
I say: post their names, so they can be known in their communities.

Cheers.


----------



## ArmyGuy99

VAC treats us all the same way.  Like dirt.

For my last two claims.  One for a neurological disorder and one for PTSD, I got the run around.

For my Neuro one, oh I got the Service related SDA no problem.  Then they only gave me 4% for the Seizures and 1% for QOL for 5% even though their own tables put me at 18% and 2% for a total of 20%; took over a year to appeal, who just affirmed it.  I was a little busy having Seizures and being in the hospital and battling depression so we missed the next appeal window.  Stuck with it for now until my re-assessment which "should" put me up two more levels. (yeah right).  Currently in wait out.

For my PTSD.  I've been completely ignored.  No letters saying that they got my claim.  They didn't even go and pick up my med docs from the CDU.  It's been 8 weeks.  Therapy isn't cheap.  I finally called the CDU (since I used to work there) and asked WTF did they pick them up and loose them again? Oh no, they never showed up to begin with.  All of a sudden they're picking up my records and things are moving again, albeit at a snails pace I'm sure.

The NVC is a joke.  VAC is a bigger joke.  The amount of red tape and blatant discrimination that is occurring, is disgraceful and unacceptable. 

For us, we are struggling financially since my release and have maybe a year.  For now Christmas for our kids is a dream.  The added stress of dealing with VAC is not helping at all.  They are causing more harm then good.  I know I'm not the only one.  But we need everyone and their families to step up and speak.

There is a class action law suit trying to get going, to force a change through the courts.  Check the following links for more info or PM me.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/105851.0.html

http://equitassociety.ca


----------



## Teager

I hear you man. I've been delaying my release as long as possible. If you are in trouble financially send me a PM as I can try to help you out especially as you have kids and a family and I have some connections. Hopefully this lawsuit puts an end to a lot of the poor treatment that has been happening.  A lot of people like the conservative government with all the great equipment they buy for us which is good. When it comes to injured vets though they just drop the ball completely amd seem to not care at all.


----------



## Sigs Pig

Not to hijack the thread, but thought this fit in the topic.

Other than honorable

ME


----------



## Teager

Thought I'd add this link here. More news on the current testifying of families and soldiers at the House of National Defence Committee.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/06/10/ill-injured-canadian-forces-members-still-not-getting-needed-treatment-say-military/34983


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit from Question Period last week after the testimony in question:


> Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, in an act of courage, Corporal Glen Kirkland testified yesterday in parliamentary committee about the post-traumatic stress he has experienced following his deployment to Afghanistan. He testified in spite of attempts to keep him quiet.  Corporal Kirkland courageously served his country, but he does not have access to the health care he needs, and now he is worried he could lose his pension.  How many veterans will have to testify in parliamentary committee before this government provides some assistance? How many? Shame on them.
> 
> Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Corporal Kirkland gave compelling and courageous testimony yesterday, or this week, before a parliamentary committee. He is a true Canadian hero.  I have sought and received assurances from the Department of National Defence, from our military, that he will receive every and all benefits to which he is entitled.  I will go further and commit to him and his family that he will suffer no ramifications for his testimony. We need to hear from veterans like Corporal Kirkland, and as well he will not suffer any consequences from coming forward.  In addition to that, he will continue to serve as long as he decides to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the question would be, why would he? Corporal Glen Kirkland served his country in Afghanistan with great courage and great valour.     Unfortunately, he came back with severe injuries. He was denied medical aid. He was told to keep quiet about his problems. He was also offered a dishonourable discharge if he came forward.  The reality is that the Prime Minister owes Mr. Kirkland and all those other veterans out there an apology for that type of treatment.  Will the minister put in writing that Mr. Kirkland will not suffer any retribution for his testimony yesterday?
> 
> Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Putting aside the usual feigned outrage from the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, this is now in Hansard so it is in writing.  I will repeat: Corporal Kirkland is a Canadian hero, is courageous for coming forward, but more important than that, he shed blood in the service of his country.  He will of course receive the proper benefits. He will of course suffer no consequences, and will continue to serve in the Canadian Forces as long as he decides.  We are incredibly grateful to him. We are incredibly grateful to all our veterans, all our serving members and their families, and this government as a consequence has increased their benefits and their protections, all of which the member voted against.


Hansard extract also attached in case link doesn't work, with Minister's statements highlighted.


----------



## Teager

Oh boy here we go again. Did the MND just say that Cpl Kirkland will not be medically released if he so chooses? If this is the case that better be the case for all other vets suffering from PTSD that want to stay in but somehow I highly doubt that.


----------



## OldSolduer

The regulations are quite clear : if you breach  U of S you may be released. We all know that. 

The decision to release someone medically is not taken lightly, and it involves several different directorates in NDHQ.


----------



## Staff Weenie

Well, I'm also wondering what is meant by the MND's statement that Cpl Kirkland "will continue to serve in the Canadian Forces as long as he decides."

Does this mean that Cpl Kirkland is exempt from Universality of Service, or perhaps UoS just got tossed, or perhaps the MND didn't mean it like that.... 

Jim - I've seen this played out a number of times now, and it seems that there really isn't a clear answer any more. I'm aware of a number of folks who don't meet UoS, can never again meet it, and yet they've stayed in for years (some for a decade).  Others get tossed by the system as fast as possible.

Whatever the intent was, it may open a can of worms for other folks (perhaps myself included) who want to continue to serve.


----------



## OldSolduer

Can of worms is correct. 

As much as I liked a former GOFO, he made promises to the wounded that were incorrect from the get go.


----------



## Teager

I'm seeing a bit of a pattern here with the government. Seems that any soldier including myself who has testified or spoken out about treatment/benefits to the media is not released at least not right away. IMO this could be a tactic to keep those that are speaking out happy and those that don't are released quicker.

Jim to show you the issues I was injured in 2006. I'm still in and serving and even have learned a new trade but do not meet UoS. I should have been medically released at least 3 to 4 years ago. I've seen guys injured 2 years after me released immediatly even though they wanted to stay in. This is a clear sign that the government is not being fair in the system.


----------



## DAA

Teager said:
			
		

> Jim to show you the issues I was injured in 2006. I'm still in and serving and even have learned a new trade but do not meet UoS. I should have been medically released at least 3 to 4 years ago. I've seen guys injured 2 years after me released immediatly even though they wanted to stay in. This is a clear sign that the government is not being fair in the system.



As much as I hate to think it, but you may have been injured at a n opportune time when "retention" was the buzz thing of the day but the flair is now starting to wear off.  Nevertheless, now we see ourselves in a position of having those who have been afforded "retention" and are still serving and those who are not being given the same consideration and being released.  The lines have become so muddied that it has now become relatively impossible for anyone to make a decision regarding someone's career that won't be called into question.


----------



## MikeL

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/injured-soldier-who-testified-about-struggles-given-discharge-notice-1.1319952



> CTVNews.ca Staff
> Published Monday, June 10, 2013 6:31PM EDT
> Last Updated Monday, June 10, 2013 9:59PM EDT
> 
> An injured Canadian soldier who testified about his struggle for health benefits has been notified that he will be discharged in six months, despite assurances from Defence Minister Peter MacKay that he would suffer “no ramifications” for speaking out.
> Vancouver-native Cpl. Glen Kirkland, who nearly died in Afghanistan five years ago when he was ambushed by the Taliban, said mere days after appearing before a parliamentary committee he received a notice in the mail of his impending discharge.
> “I was absolutely taken aback,” Kirkland told CTV News. “I was pretty much speechless and pretty devastated.”
> 
> According to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, if a CF member is released from duty because of a disability, they are entitled to an unreduced pension if they have accumulated 10 year of pensionable service.
> “I never asked to be discharged,” the 29-year-old said. “My intention was to get a 10-year indexed pension. Not just for myself, but for other soldiers, so they can have that consistent income.”
> Kirkland said he signed back the discharge notice indicating that he did not agree with the Canadian Force’s decision.
> Earlier, Kirkland had said he was ordered not to testify about his concerns or he’ll have no pension when he’s discharged, or be given adequate assistance for covering his medical bills for a long list of injuries.
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Monday that Kirkland had not yet been released from the military, but appeared to acknowledge the six-month discharge notice.
> “There were papers signed and explained to him that they were to do with his future career,” said MacKay. “He willfully signed those papers. But I can confirm he has not been released from the Canadian Armed Forces.”
> Senior staff of the defence minister met with top military officials Monday to discuss the issue.
> Kirkland, a fourth-generation soldier, suffered a rocket attack in Afghanistan that killed three of the five people travelling in his vehicle in the Zhari district of Afghanistan.
> “I had to pull myself while on fire, and through gunfire, to try to extract my dead and dying brothers-in-arms,” he testified last week.
> He suffered serious injuries, including the loss of 75 per cent of his hearing, the loss of some sight and a brain injury that left him forever dependant on insulin.
> “I suffer from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) so badly that I haven’t been able to visit my home in Vancouver for years,” he testified. “I can’t handle the anxiety of being around crowds. Survivor’s guilt haunts me every day.”
> Last week, MacKay said Kirkland would “receive every and all benefits to which he is entitled.”
> Veteran advocate Wayne Johnston said Kirkland’s story has exposed a serious flaw in the military.
> “It pains me to say this, but the message basically is, ‘You get hurt, we’re going to throw you away like someone’s tissue paper,’” Johnston, of Wounded Warriors, said.
> Meanwhile, Kirkland said he’s not prepared to back down just yet.
> “I still have faith and hope that the right thing is done in the long run for me and my fellow brothers in arms,” he said.
> 
> With a report from CTV’s Richard Madan


----------



## The Bread Guy

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Well, I'm also wondering what is meant by the MND's statement that Cpl Kirkland "will continue to serve in the Canadian Forces as long as he decides." ....


The Minister was a bit clearer in Question Period yesterday responding to a Liberal question about about Cpl. Kirkland (also attached if link doesn't work for you) - highlights mine:


> When I heard about the testimony of Corporal Kirkland, I was out of the country doing business on behalf of the Department of National Defence and the country. As a result, I sought assurances from the department that there would be no negative inference as a result of his testimony. If there has been, I certainly would like to hear about it.  If the member has further information, specific to this individual's case, I would be happy to receive it .... *Any Afghan vet injured in combat will not be released as a result of those injuries.*  Rather than trying to score political points on the floor of the House of Commons, everyone would be better off had the hon. member chosen to contact my office on behalf of this individual and we could work productively with him, which I am very anxious to do on behalf of Corporal Kirkland.


 :worms: ?


----------



## Teager

Well this just makes things even more grey and muddier. So on one hand MND says "No Afghan vets will be released from injuries" But then we have written and current policy that says if you don't meet UoS you can be released. So which is it?

IMO written policy will override what a politician says so unless the MND has the policy re-written to what he has said I don't forsee what he says taking place.

I totally agree with Cpl Kirkland with the 10 year pension. I have heard this from other injured members and I myself am 2 years away from my 10 year mark.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Is Corporal Kirkland being released because he  testified about his struggle for health benefits  or because it's standard for someone in his position?


----------



## Nemo888

Teager said:
			
		

> Thought I'd add this link here. More news on the current testifying of families and soldiers at the House of National Defence Committee.
> 
> http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/06/10/ill-injured-canadian-forces-members-still-not-getting-needed-treatment-say-military/34983



The link is subscriber only. Same article is over here as well.
http://democracyastray.blogspot.ca/2013/06/ill-injured-canadian-forces-members.html


----------



## Journeyman

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Is Corporal Kirkland being released because he  testified about his struggle for health benefits  or because it's standard for someone in his position?


I would suspect that there's no link between his testimony and the release notice.  He said that he "received it in the mail," which would require NDHQ to make a decision _and_ Canada Post to get the letter to him within a week -- an obvious impossibility in the realm of governmental bureaucratic physics.


----------



## Teager

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I would suspect that there's no link between his testimony and the release notice.  He said that he "received it in the mail," which would require NDHQ to make a decision _and_ Canada Post to get the letter to him within a week -- an obvious impossibility in the realm of governmental bureaucratic physics.



Is it normal to receive your release message through the mail? Would your CoC not be the ones informing you of the release message?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I would suspect that there's no link between his testimony and the release notice.  He said that he "received it in the mail," which would require NDHQ to make a decision _and_ Canada Post to get the letter to him within a week -- an obvious impossibility in the realm of governmental bureaucratic physics.



I was thinking the very same thing about the mail actually.  One week? No way.


The story seems to insinuate he's being released because he gave his testimony.


----------



## Journeyman

Teager said:
			
		

> Is it normal to receive your release message through the mail? Would your CoC not be the ones informing you of the release message?


:dunno:     I've never received a medical release message.




			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> The story seems to insinuate he's being released because he gave his testimony.


Of course, implied scandal and government-bashing is always more newsworthy than boring old facts.


----------



## ArmyGuy99

Hitting the 10yr mark would have been great.  I would have made it to 9.  However, "retention" doesn't seem to be a  word being thrown around now days.  Especially since recruiting went 5k over their target.  oops.

Or, like my trade, someone changed the TO&E.  Medics went from Red to Green overnight, and it was announced that they had reached all the recruiting targets and had matched attrition.  huh?  All us medics on the ground were a little confused.  Someone in Ottawa has been playing the number shuffle game.

Word was when I was releasing last year, that retention was a dream word unless you were "Operationally Necessary".  My CM shop was like uh, sorry no.  So, I had to get out with 6.5.  bye bye pension.

Now I wait for the $80k in checks that the Pension Plan owes me in Transfer Value so I can a) buy a house with my portion. and b) Squirrel away the other half so I can actually have a pension in 30 years.

I had 10 days to get it to them after signing the papers, that was a month ago. Where's my $$ oh and answer the damn phone and return your e-mails. (sorry for the hijack)


----------



## Occam

MedTech32 said:
			
		

> Now I wait for the $80k in checks that the Pension Plan owes me in Transfer Value so I can a) buy a house with my portion. and b) Squirrel away the other half so I can actually have a pension in 30 years.



I keep seeing this...have you verified with the pension people and/or CRA to determine if you can use the transfer value to borrow against for purposes of the Home Buyer's Plan?  Based on what I'm seeing from numerous sources, I don't think you're allowed to do that.  The transfer value deposited to your RRSP is locked-in.


----------



## Teager

I do wonder if Cpl Kirkland was posted to an IPSC/JPSU? If he's not my next question would be why not? If he's not posted to a IPSC/JPSU that could explain a lot of the poor treatment and tough access to medical things. Not trying to put his unit down but IPSC/JPSU usually goes that extra mile for its members and any problems you have are normally sorted in a timely fashion. They just have an overall ability to help injured members out way more than a unit. Although maybe he fell through the cracks.


----------



## bick

Glen is posted to the IPSC in Shilo.  He has been for yrs.  He currently works as a realtor in Brandon and has been warned many times about the spirit of the RTW/Transition rules.


----------



## gcclarke

I think it's somewhat important to highlight the specific wording of the QR&O in question



> 15.05 – RETENTION OF OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON MEDICAL GROUNDS
> 
> An officer or non-commissioned member of the Regular Force who is suffering from a disease or injury that necessitates his release as medically unfit may, at the discretion of the Chief of the Defence Staff or the officer commanding the command, be retained for prolonged treatment, institutional care or medical observation for a further period of not more than six months, at the end of which time he shall be released *unless otherwise directed by the Minister.*


----------



## DAA

"Retention" was a means to keep people who could be gainfully employed within their occupation as a result of increased "attrition" that the recruiting system was not able to keep pace with.  So some occupations became seriously under-strength, hence, the offers of "3 year" periods of retention, followed by release sort of became the norm.  That is not the case today.......

The can of worms here and the question is a matter of "fairness".  So if we have someone injured in "theatre" and they are retained as a result, why would we not retain someone who was injured "out of threatre" who can still perform to the same level?

What is offered to one, shoud be offered to the other, regardless of circumstance.

I don't think what we are seeing is so much as a "lack of support" from the immediate CoC but more a "lack of knowledge and experience" to properly deal with these kind of issues.  Hence, the creation of IPSC/JPSU entities within the CF.

Which may or may not have led to some shall we say "peeing matches" between units and IPSC/JPSU units.   Think about it?  If one of your soldiers were ill or injured and you were active and truly wanted to help that person, then suddenly they are "posted" out of your unit.........I'd be upset!  And if I were the member, I would be more inclined to "want" to deal with people I know!

IPSC/JPSU are current, up to date and knowledgeable and there for a reason.......


----------



## OldSolduer

If a soldier is on a TCat for more than a year, he is taking up a PY that a healthy soldier could have.


The JPSU is in essence a unit that can either assist the member in regaining their health, or if that is not possible, transition to civilian life as smoothly as possible.


----------



## bigcletus

This may have recently been posted but I just read it on the news...

Now this is interesting:

"“I’m very glad that he (MacKay) has publicly stated that all soldiers who have been wounded can stay in as long as they want,” Kirkland said. “It’s not just me now; he publicly stated that all wounded soldiers can stay.”

"MacKay responded that all injured Canadian Forces members are not to be released from the military until they are prepared to do so. “There is a program specifically designed to help with that transition,” he said. “That will be the case for Cpl. Kirkland. That will be the case for injured members of the Canadian Forces on my watch.”


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Wound ... story.html


----------



## Teager

bigcletus said:
			
		

> "MacKay responded that all injured Canadian Forces members are not to be released from the military until they are prepared to do so. “There is a program specifically designed to help with that transition,” he said. “That will be the case for Cpl. Kirkland. That will be the case for injured members of the Canadian Forces on my watch."



So technically you can stay until the transition has taken place. You CANNOT stay as long as you like. Theres a big difference there.


----------



## dapaterson

Hopefully some day he'll be able to transition into another full-time career - maybe something like real estate.

"... my military career was cut short. The transition allowed me to re-focus my passion on Real Estate.  Now, as a full-time realtor..."

http://www.glenkirklandrealestate.ca/


So, he's being paid a full-time military salary while he works full-time as a real estate agent.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Although you aren't apparently allowed to have a second job in the JPSU what's the issue really?  There are tons of people who have a second job. And yes the unit knows. He has an office in the Canex mall, as well as ads in the Shilo stag.


----------



## McG

I suspect the media and opposition might become somewhat less supportive if they learn that he has full-time civilian employment in addition to military pay without coming into the base.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

That is very possible. I see him as a success story. Not one of the guys stuck in his room drinking beer and playing Xbox.  As I said the base knows what he's doing and there are thousands of other troops collecting a military pay cheque as well as civie work. Granted those aren't highlighted.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I would suspect that there's no link between his testimony and the release notice.  He said that he "received it in the mail," which would require NDHQ to make a decision _and_ Canada Post to get the letter to him within a week -- an obvious impossibility in the realm of governmental bureaucratic physics.


On the other hand, sometimes, things can happen _quite_ quickly - highlights mine ....


> *The Canadian Forces has reversed its decision to discharge a Canadian soldier who testified about his struggle for health benefits and his long recovery from injuries suffered in the Afghanistan war.*
> 
> Vancouver-native Cpl. Glen Kirkland, who almost died while serving in Afghanistan five years ago when he was attacked by the Taliban, was informed by the military he could stay in the army until he qualifies for a 10-year indexed pension.
> 
> According to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, if a CF member is released from duty because of a disability, they are entitled to an unreduced pension if they have accumulated 10 year of pensionable service.
> 
> The military's decision comes a day after Kirkland was notified he was going to be discharged in six months -- despite assurances from Defence Minister Peter MacKay in the House of Commons that he would not suffer “ramifications” for speaking out.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> *Tuesday’s decision comes after Mackay called Vice-Chief of Defence Staff Bruce Donaldson late Monday night and ordered him to reverse the military's decision to discharge Kirkland.*
> 
> The outcome of that call was revealed on Tuesday when NDP MP Peter Stoffer asked MacKay in the House of Commons if he was going to follow through on his promise that Kirkland would not suffer any ramifications for testifying about his experience as an injured veteran ....


CTV.ca, 11 Jun 13

This from Question Period yesterday - highlights mine:


> _Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): _ Mr. Speaker, on Friday, Corporal Kirkland was given his discharge papers, and in rejecting the terms made to him by the Canadian Forces, he wrote:
> 
> As of 15 Sept. 2015 I would be able to collect a Partial index Pension, this pension would help me in my quality of Life and is essential to my successful release. The [Minister] has stated in Parliament on 6 June 2013 that I may stay in the forces as long as I need. I believe this option should be available to ALL wounded soldiers.
> 
> Does the minister agree?
> 
> _Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):_  Mr. Speaker, as is the case with all injured members, *Corporal Kirkland, in fact, will be able to fully prepare mentally, physically and occupationally for his eventual release. That is his option. That is the case with all Canadian Forces members injured in combat.  With respect to Corporal Kirkland, I can inform the member that, in fact, Colonel Blais, of Canadian military forces personnel, spoke with him and confirmed that this direction applies to him and that this option for release will be his and his alone.*
> 
> _Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):_  Mr. Speaker, I am actually pleased to hear the minister's response. I do hope that his response is assurance that Corporal Kirkland will receive his pension, that he will receive his medications, that this option will be available to all the wounded soldiers, because that is a policy decision, and that further, the chain of command is onside.  I am pleased with the minister's answer, and I am hoping that when he responds, he will recognize that, in fact, Corporal Kirkland is watching his response.
> 
> _Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):_  I am pleased that he is pleased, Mr. Speaker.


----------



## 392

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> As I said the base knows what he's doing and there are thousands of other troops collecting a military pay cheque as well as civie work. Granted those aren't highlighted.




I don't for one second pretend to be an admin expert on the ins and outs of having a second job as a RegF member, but I am sure there is a pretty big difference between moonlighting to earn extra money evenings and weekends and working full time at a civy job without being on leave from the CF.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

That maybe the case. That said we have guys killing themselves and rotting away. This guy has made lemonade out of lemons. And like I said the base is FULLY aware of his activities.


----------



## dapaterson

His transition to a civilian career is a success - no argument there.  But if he has transitioned, why is he being kept in the CF?

Ultimately the CF/VAC interface needs to be cleaned up, with VAC taking a much larger role.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

That is a great question which I don't think anyone here can answer. The system needs to be fixed. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason who gets released, why, and when.


----------



## McG

The system did appear to be working.  He was successfully transitioned to civi life with civi employment, and so he was give six months notice of release (this would have followed a lengthy admin review that he would have been afforded the option to represent himself to decision makes).  

This sets a bad precident.  The CoC could have supported his civi career when it was a mechanism to transition.  Now that he is staying in indefinitely, maybe it is time to call him back in to earn his CF paycheck.


----------



## Teager

Heres another question. There saying he can choose when to leave or at a minimum stay to the 10 year mark. So if a soldier is injured with only 3 years into their career is the military going to give them the option of staying to the 10 year mark?

VAC won't be taking a larger role anytime soon with all the cut backs and staff being cut. I do agree that there should be less interference with the CF/VAC and VAC should take a bigger role.

MCG I agree with the fact that he should be earning his CF pay. I know of others doing the same as him. For myself I come to work everyday and I feel that he isn't representing injured folk who are continuing to work in the CF very well.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So if he can't be employed in a meaningful way in the CF then he should sit on his ass in the JPSU office or at home until he's released?


----------



## McG

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> So if he can't be employed in a meaningful way in the CF then he should sit on his ass in the JPSU office or at home until he's released?


No.  Now that he is fully and successfully transitioned to civi life, he should be out of the forces.  No taking a spot against our authorized strength nor collecting a free indefinite paycheck.


----------



## Teager

I beleive theres a point some are missing here. In Cpl Kirklands case he has been able to move on and find meaniful work and yes should be able to release. The problem lies with multiple other injured who are struggling to find meaniful work and the fact that benefits either take forever to get or are just not adequate makes living very hard for soldiers especialy with families. 

Injured soldiers would move on a lot more easier if they felt they were being taken care of and not having to struggle. So many cling to the forces and avoid their release so that they can simply provide for themselves or their family. For those that think the benefits are adequate and that everything is pretty good you clearly have not been in injured folks position.

Sure soldiers know the risks of going to war but we do so believing that if something happens we will be taken care of. The system has been failing ever since the NVC came into effect and for whatever reaon the government refuses to change it for the better.


----------



## Jarnhamar

If he is working in the civilian work force full time, how long could he remain collecting CF paychecks and benefits?


Without trying to be unsupportive of this soldier this situation is obviously going to raise a few eyebrows.



Is a soldier who is at JPSU and working a civilian job (on regular military hours) the same as a soldier who is on sick leave/half days and working at a civilian job during the 'half day' they are not in uniform?


----------



## McG

RTW is supposed to provide unpaid job placements (either within the CF & DND or within the larger civilian workforce).  If this occasionally results in a second paycheck but enables a service member to transition, then I don't see a problem.  If we want to guarantee pers will receive the military pension that they paid into, then lower the threshold from 10 years for the purpose of med releases who cannot transfer to the PS and guarantee a PS job for those who can transfer.  While we are at it amend priorety hiring to put injured service members on equal footing to workforce-adjusted PSs.

There are many in far worse position than Cpl Kirkland, but if he becomes the poster child then I worry they will suffer any corrective backlash if the public (media) determine he is exploiting a system intended to (though often not succeeding at) helping the wounded.


----------



## Teager

If Cpl Kirkland is to continue collecting CF pay for the next 2 years why not employ him with Brookfield? That way he still gets to do real estate but contribute to the CF under one pay cheque.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I totally agree he should be out of the system.  Not knowing how the system works I can't speak on why he is still being retained.


----------



## Wookilar

Politics, plain and simple.

This whole thing is really starting to piss me off. Where the frig does this little piss ant get off expecting to be treated different than me? He was wounded? On tour?

Great, me to.

I'm getting the boot. My PCat was signed in October, D MED POL done with me in Nov, DMCA done with me and release message cut in Feb.

Where the frig is my press conference where I can get national spotlight and retain my position?

Not that I'm bitter or anything. The system is churning me out as fast as it can. I can still do my job here at home. I can get posted, go on course, I'm even eligible for promotion; I'm just not allowed in an "Operational Environment" whatever the hell that means (no one on the medical side or at JPSU is able to tell me what the definition is).

The Minister, with all due respect, really needs to watch his words in the House. He's just setting up the CoC for an inundation of redresses. I'm not out till 23 Aug....mine might just be one of them.

edit: Thanks to the auto-correcter thingy for correcting my profanity.


----------



## ArmyGuy99

Occam said:
			
		

> I keep seeing this...have you verified with the pension people and/or CRA to determine if you can use the transfer value to borrow against for purposes of the Home Buyer's Plan?  Based on what I'm seeing from numerous sources, I don't think you're allowed to do that.  The transfer value deposited to your RRSP is locked-in.



Occam,

Half of the value is locked in till I'm 60. The other $40k is mine.  I've decided to pop it into RRSPs then take it out later.  A slight savings on taxes, rather then taking the full $40k - capital gains.

It's all legal, I'll just eat the $40k in income at the end of the year.  Thankfully the bank will withhold a percentage for taxes.  So, it should all work out.

Unless VAC comes through with the $$ I'm supposed to get for my claims  :rofl:

So it's a waiting game as I get my house ready to sell, and watch the one I want, hoping it doesn't get sold. :-[


Wookilar:

There is always more to a story than what's on the surface isn't there?  I agree, if his transition has been completed.  The rules say, bye bye.  If he's being retained for x years.  Then according to the Regulations he cannot work as a civvie, plain and simple.

Otherwise, I want back into JPSU/IPSC. I never should have been released either.  I'll go find me another job and collect both checks too.  My debtors would love it.  So would my wife.  

Sniff, sniff wrongful dismissal? I can hear the lawyers salivating already.

My parents always taught me:

"What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander"


----------



## ArmyGuy99

From the G&M

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wounded-soldier-wins-right-to-stay-in-military-but-confusion-lingers-about-other-cases/article12486181/


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Politics, plain and simple.
> 
> This whole thing is really starting to piss me off. Where the frig does this little piss ant get off expecting to be treated different than me? He was wounded? On tour?
> 
> Great, me to.
> 
> I'm getting the boot. My PCat was signed in October, D MED POL done with me in Nov, DMCA done with me and release message cut in Feb.
> 
> Where the frig is my press conference where I can get national spotlight and retain my position?
> 
> Not that I'm bitter or anything. The system is churning me out as fast as it can. I can still do my job here at home. I can get posted, go on course, I'm even eligible for promotion; I'm just not allowed in an "Operational Environment" whatever the hell that means (no one on the medical side or at JPSU is able to tell me what the definition is).
> 
> The Minister, with all due respect, really needs to watch his words in the House. He's just setting up the CoC for an inundation of redresses. I'm not out till 23 Aug....mine might just be one of them.
> 
> edit: Thanks to the auto-correcter thingy for correcting my profanity.



This piss ant is trying to get benefits for all those in his boat you ungrateful fuck.


----------



## Wookilar

What benefits? The rules on collecting a pension are how old? How many people have been injured and released before their 10 year mark? But this guy, who appears to be making a go of it on his own, makes an appearance on the Hill, and he's special?

I don't think you understand what a can of worms this guy is opening up.

There or more than a few people out there "in his boat." I'm going to guarantee  right now that none of them are getting treated like he his (or will be).

He is being treated differently because of the spotlight.

Keeping all injured in until they can collect whatever % of pension that will satisfy them will be an administrative nightmare. He doesn't get his 20% and is not happy? Great, I'm not happy with my career being cut short 15 years before I am ready either. 

Where does it stop? The line is clear, and frankly, is fair I think. If there are issues with his employment/career earnings after leaving, that's a question for the VAC programs, not for the CAF to bend over backwards and break our own rules for special cases.

The rules on second jobs while transitioning out are extremely strict for a number of reasons. If this guy is making enough money to afford renting an office in the Canex mall...well you make up your own mind on that one. Want to work your Voc Rehab in real estate for your last 6 months? Sure no problem, just not allowed to make any money at while you are doing so, UNTIL you are released. He has had years to prepare, he has used the system to full effect. He is ready.

Working a second job after hours is EXTREMELY different than working a job, and making money, while you are on active duty.

Sounds to me like he's doing ok, with or without a pension. As far as caring for his injuries go, that's a VAC question and will cost him nothing (monetarily).


----------



## The Bread Guy

Folks, let's wrestle with the issues, not with each other.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Teager

The cure for everything here is to bring back a pension system for injuries instead of a lump sum. I think a large part of these problems would then disappear and I think the majority of the injured would be much happier with that knowing they have that pension amount there for life.


----------



## DAA

I'm not really following the thread but what about "SISIP-LTD" which he was obviously paying into and did he not take out additional insurance prior to deployment which every member is encouraged to do?

The Minister can't just authorize this, it opens the door for multiple grievances both past and present.....


----------



## Teager

DAA said:
			
		

> I'm not really following the thread but what about "SISIP-LTD" which he was obviously paying into and did he not take out additional insurance prior to deployment which every member is encouraged to do?
> 
> The Minister can't just authorize this, it opens the door for multiple grievances both past and present.....



SISIP pays out if you have loss of limb. It also pays out 75% of your pay at time of release unless you are a reservist then it is 75% at time of injury. Also theres suppose to be a minimum of a pre tax amount of $40k in case your injured as a pte. Now I have heard conflicting reports about the minimum amount of some not recieving that but can't say for sure. You are given 2 years with SISIP then you move over to VAC if you require to continue on that if you meet VACs criteria. Thats how I understand it. If I'm wrong please correct me.


----------



## OldSolduer

Just to let you know, Glen was the driver of a LAV that was  hit by an 82 mm anti tank round on 3 Sep 2008.
It hurts me to see this infighting.





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Folks, let's wrestle with the issues, not with each other.
> 
> *Milnet.ca Staff*



I quite agree. Stop fighting each other.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The Minister opposition sends a message to the military - highlights mine ....


> An attempt to hold military officers to account for allegedly trying to intimidate an injured Canadian soldier into toning down his testimony before a parliamentary committee has been smothered behind closed doors.
> 
> The House of Commons defence committee met for almost an hour out of the public eye on Wednesday to deal with a motion by Liberal MP John McKay over the case of Cpl. Glen Kirkland.
> 
> Following the meeting, the only thing McKay and New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris would say was that the motion, which called on the committee to ask the Commons to investigate the alleged intimidation, no longer existed.
> 
> Neither of them were allowed to say whether the motion had been voted down or withdrawn because proceedings that happen behind closed doors are to remain secret.
> 
> (....)
> 
> Conservative MPs, who form a majority on the committee, used their numbers to force the closed-door session, which have become more and more common around Parliament, even on routine matters.
> 
> *"Witness tampering is a serious offence," said McKay. "By instructing Cpl. Kirkland to stay 'within his arcs' his commanding officers were instructing him to withhold information from the committee, making it virtually impossible for parliamentarians to understand the issues that ill and injured members of the Canadian Forces face."
> 
> The Canadian military claims it was only offering communications guidance when it issued those instructions*, but both Opposition parties say they look at it as an attempt to stifle the flow of information, particularly the kind that embarrasses the government.
> 
> "It is important in a functional democracy that Canadians have the ability to speak freely to their parliamentarians, especially when their experiences can be of help to the committee," McKay said ....





			
				DAA said:
			
		

> The Minister can't just authorize this, it opens the door for multiple grievances both past and present ....


You're right about the bit in orange, but on the yellow bit, the Minister can (alternative link to QR&O ref here), and he did.

Typically, Ministers get bureaucratic advice before making decisions - I _presume_ the Defence Minister gets uniform military advice, too.  One has to wonder how much of either was involved in the making of this decision.

edited to fix McKay-MacKay mixup


----------



## George Wallace

> *"Witness tampering is a serious offence," said McKay. "By instructing Cpl. Kirkland to stay 'within his arcs' his commanding officers were instructing him to withhold information from the committee, making it virtually impossible for parliamentarians to understand the issues that ill and injured members of the Canadian Forces face."
> 
> The Canadian military claims it was only offering communications guidance when it issued those instructions*, but both Opposition parties say they look at it as an attempt to stifle the flow of information, particularly the kind that embarrasses the government.
> ....




Does this not look like the Opposition Parties are looking more for "rumour and innuendo" than the actual facts in order to smear the Government?  I would think that one should only talk about what they know, not speculate on what rumours abound, in such a hearing.  Is that not good advice to give?  Doesn't say much for the Opposition Members to want otherwise.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does this not look like the Opposition Parties are looking more for "rumour and innuendo" than the actual facts in order to smear the Government?


Some might say that's _all_ some Opposition likes to do.


----------



## Nemo888

SISIP and VAC are becoming more of an issue again. Once the cuts began Priority Hiring turned into a farce.  Without that a top up pension is indicated.  Injured vets face a real decline in income due to their decreased abilities. Scraping by does not exactly sound fair to me. To go from 55k to security guard seems like an abrogation of responsibility and a huge waste of human potential.


----------



## Jarnhamar

If I was an injured vet I who has been released I'd be looking for a lawyer.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> If I was an injured vet I who has been released I'd be looking for a lawyer.


 :nod:


----------



## Wookilar

To what end?

It will be interesting to see how the newest class-action goes, that may set a tone for future engagements.

But myself, as an injured, soon to be released vet, I can't afford any lawyer and certainly not the type of lawyer that can take a case such as this to the Supreme Court. I've seen the amount of the bill that had to be paid to the lawyers in the SISIP case.

I'm not upset over the amount of my pension. I'm getting my 2%/year blah blah blah. What I am upset about is twofold:
1) The lump sum payments are a joke. For me, the math works out to over $1M in lost wages. I got $56K. I know I'm preaching to the choir on that one.

2) The inability of the CAF to employ, in any fashion, those that have been injured. I've worked with more than a few US amputees that were still serving their country, in uniform. Why can't we do better that way?

And don't tell me it's about smaller numbers, deployability, we're generalists bullcrap.

It's about a lack of imagination.


----------



## OldSolduer

Wookilar said:
			
		

> It It's about a lack of imagination.



I will agree there - and leave it at that. 

Everyone should remember that each case is different, and that there is no cookie cutter solution to veteran's issues.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I will agree there - and leave it at that.
> 
> Everyone should remember that each case is different, and that there is no cookie cutter solution to veteran's issues.



I agree as well. There are a number of british amputees who even deployed as well.


----------



## Teager

This is a link to a blog with an e-mail from Harold Leduc titled NVC and other problems? Mr. Leduc is a former military member and served on the VRAB. Good read with a lot of good points.

http://jimnewton.blogspot.ca/2013/06/nvc-and-other-problems-from-harold-leduc.html?spref=fb


----------



## Teager

Now that there is a new MND do the statements of the previous MND still stand on medically releasing soldiers?


----------



## Wookilar

Yes, as they are a matter of public record.

However, the amount of calendar days that those statements hold for could conceivably be over now that he is no longer in the chair.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> Now that there is a new MND do the statements of the previous MND still stand on medically releasing soldiers?


If The Canadian Press is to be believed, yes - highlights mine:


> Gravely injured troops are being booted from the military before they qualify for a pension, despite assurances to the contrary from the Harper government.
> 
> A former reserve combat engineer was let go last Friday on a medical discharge after begging for months to remain until hitting the 10-year mark.  Cpl. David Hawkins is about a year shy of being eligible for an indexed pension, but was released because his post traumatic stress means he is unable to deploy overseas.
> 
> *Among those also leaving is Cpl. Glen Kirkland. His plea to remain in the army last June was answered by former defence minister Peter MacKay with an a pledge he could stay until September 2015 — and that no members are released until they are ready.  But the offer turned out to be exclusive to Kirkland, who chose within the last few days to leave rather than be given special treatment.
> 
> "I joined as a member of a team, as a family," Kirkland said in an interview from Shilo, Man.  "So, when I was offered an opportunity when no one else was, it just goes against everything I joined for."  He will be formally discharged in March* ...."


----------



## Teager

By: Murray Brewster The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Oct 29 2013 

 OTTAWA—Gravely injured troops are being booted from the military before they qualify for a pension, despite assurances to the contrary from the Harper government.

A former reserve combat engineer was let go last Friday on a medical discharge after begging for months to remain until hitting the 10-year mark.

Cpl. David Hawkins is about a year shy of being eligible for an indexed pension, but was released because his post-traumatic stress means he is unable to deploy overseas.

Among those also leaving is Cpl. Glen Kirkland. His plea to remain in the army last June was answered by former defence minister Peter MacKay with a pledge he could stay until September 2015 — and that no members are released until they are ready.

Featured Video Close .
More Video 
 New Brunswick & Saskatchewan premiers tout west-east pipeline
 Harper needs to face up to Mike Duffy scandal: NDP
 Some stakeholders upbeat about Canada-EU trade deal

 UN official says Canada's aboriginal communities in crisis

But the offer turned out to be exclusive to Kirkland, who chose within the last few days to leave rather than be given special treatment.

“I joined as a member of a team, as a family,” Kirkland said in an interview from Shilo, Man. “So, when I was offered an opportunity when no one else was, it just goes against everything I joined for.”

He will be formally discharged in March.

Kirkland was left with damaged hearing, post-traumatic stress, and injuries that affect his insulin levels, all the result of the 2008 Taliban bombing that killed three of his comrades.

Both he and Hawkins do not meet the military’s universality of service rule, which requires members to be fit to deploy at a moment’s notice. They also fall under a system whereby a member must serve 10 years to qualify for an indexed pension. If they don’t, they’re refunded their contributions.

Hawkins, from London, Ont., spent his tour between September 2008 and April 2009 as a member of a quick-reaction force of soldiers called out of a forward operating base to deal with suicide attacks and roadside bombings.

The stress started creeping up on him overseas, and he went from sleeping in a light armoured vehicle, ready to combat the Taliban, to sleeping in his truck near London, Ont., because it was the only place he felt comfortable.

Hawkins was prescribed 13 medications for his disorder while being processed at the military’s operational stress injury centre. He said he wanted to remain in the Forces to re-qualify as a firefighter once he felt better.

But there is a time limit for recovery under universality of service and he was eventually given an ultimatum.

“They were just trying to push me through the system, even though I had told them I wasn’t ready,” Hawkins said. “I was told, ‘No, you’re going to have to go back to work, or we can drop your funding right now.’”

As a reservist, Hawkins faces a different set of entitlements and rules than Kirkland, who is a member of the regular force. Now that he is out of the military, Hawkins is eligible for benefits under Veterans Affairs, including retraining.

But he says his PTSD diagnosis will be a black mark as he looks for work.

Last spring, MacKay was emphatic in the House of Commons that no one would be forced out.

“In fact, all injured members are not released from the military until they are prepared to do so. Until they are prepared for release, they work with members of the Canadian Forces on their transition plan, and when it is appropriate for their families and they are ready to make a shift into the private sector,” he said on June 11.

A spokeswoman for newly appointed Defence Minister Rob Nicholson said Hawkins’ case is under review.

“We thank Cpl. Hawkins for his service and sacrifice for Canada,” Julie Di Mambro said in an email. “We are aware of the issue and are looking into it further.”

Kirkland said he is disillusioned by his experience with the government, and by what happened to Hawkins.

“I don’t have very much faith in the politicians who are pulling the strings,” he said.

“There needs to be some serious change. I mean, who would join? Would you tell your kids to join knowing that if they get disabled they won’t be looked after?”

The Conservative government has poured millions of dollars into veterans programs, and recently underscored its commitment to ex-soldiers in the throne speech

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/10/29/injured_canadian_troops_booted_from_military_before_qualifying_for_pension.html


----------



## McG

Teager said:
			
		

> Last spring, MacKay was emphatic in the House of Commons that no one would be forced out.  “In fact, all injured members are not released from the military until they are prepared to do so. Until they are prepared for release, they work with members of the Canadian Forces on their transition plan, and when it is appropriate for their families and they are ready to make a shift into the private sector,” he said on June 11.


But this cannot be the answer.  Better mechanisms are required to support and encourage that shift to the private sector; that is the answer.  Ensuring the right support is provided for injuries is part of the anwer.  Maybe guaranteed employment in the public service could be part of the answer (but getting into the fine details may show this to be unsupportable).


----------



## Nudibranch

MCG said:
			
		

> But this cannot be the answer.  Better mechanisms are required to support and encourage that shift to the private sector; that is the answer.  Ensuring the right support is provided for injuries is part of the anwer.  Maybe guaranteed employment in the public service could be part of the answer (but getting into the fine details may show this to be unsupportable).



I agree that's not the answer. If a guy gets inujured on deployment in year 3, what? Keep him on light duties/JPSU/whatever for the sole reason of reaching 10 years in and getting a pension? What if he gets injured playing hockey as part of unit PT? Also eligible for 2, 4, 6, however many years of full salary until he's "ready"? And what does "ready" mean, if being "ready" = "cutting off my secure paycheque"?

But that's where VA used to step in. If CAF broke you, yes, CAF would release you if you couldn't meet UoS any more. But you wouldn't be out on the street, you'd start getting your VA pension instead. IMO a huge reason behind this is the switch to lump sum payment.


----------



## stokerwes

I agree that a major part of the issue is the lump sum award. I am in the process of medically releasing. I have several CF related injuries illness. However any one of them on their own will  not categorize me as "Totally and Permanently Disabled" under the new system.  So if I am understanding how the system works correctly I will get up 75% of my pre- release salary for up to two years to go to school/training and then I'll be on my own. Working a five day 40 hour week will be very difficult if not impossible for me once released. At least as it stands now. I am working half days and that is a task in itself.
The biggest stressor for me is not finding employment, its keeping it. I doubt many employers will tolerate the amount of time that I will miss because of my injuries and illnesses. So more than likely I will bounce from one low paying job to the next.
I am fortunate enough that I will have a 25+ year CF pension but with young children still living at home that won't be enough. The max lump sum award of 300000 (rounded up) would allow for a monthly payment of 1136.00 / month until age 65 in my case, which is not too bad at my age. But for someone who is in their 20's, say 25, if they get the max amount of 300000 and live to 65 the monthly payment would only be  625.00 / month, plus no CF pension. That's not enough considering only the most severely disabled get the max award.
There are many jobs within the CF that personnel that are injured can do. Not just RMS jobs either. A lot of the PS jobs could be done by injured serving members. When the government cuts PS jobs they could be filled by an injured CF member because the job and requirement are still there. I know that the unions would have a field day with that. But it sure beats having someone hanging around the CF until they can get a pension. Most people that are injured want to work it is just the universality of service restricts them from staying in the CF.
In PS and private sectors if you are injured at work they do their best to accommodate that person. They even will transfer that person to a different line of work with the same pay.
Why can't the CF do this for it's injured members?


----------



## mariomike

stokerwes said:
			
		

> In PS and private sectors if you are injured at work they do their best to accommodate that person. They even will transfer that person to a different line of work with the same pay.



Sometimes the pre-accident/illness job can not be permanently modified to accommodate the employee and allow him/her to perform the "Essential Duties" of the job.

In that case, a "Suitable Job" must be found. 

The important language in the Collective Agreement is, "If the pre-injury rate of pay is higher than the relocated position rate, then the pre-injury rate is to be maintained. It is understood that the pre-injury rate is subject to all wage increases negotiated."


----------



## dapaterson

The CF does attempt to accomodate members.  Career review boards identify whether accomodation is possible.  If that is not possible, members may be permitted to change trades, provided they meet the requirements for the new trade.

But the CF cannot accomodate an unlimited number of people; and those periods of retention cannot be infinite.  Military service is not a right.


----------



## Nudibranch

stokerwes said:
			
		

> There are many jobs within the CF that personnel that are injured can do. Not just RMS jobs either. A lot of the PS jobs could be done by injured serving members. When the government cuts PS jobs they could be filled by an injured CF member because the job and requirement are still there. I know that the unions would have a field day with that. But it sure beats having someone hanging around the CF until they can get a pension. Most people that are injured want to work it is just the universality of service restricts them from staying in the CF.
> In PS and private sectors if you are injured at work they do their best to accommodate that person. They even will transfer that person to a different line of work with the same pay.
> Why can't the CF do this for it's injured members?



Exactly - in PS and private sector.

You can't remove UoS from the CAF requirement, because removing that removes...well, the necessity of having actual CAF members. After all, many if not most of the jobs done in garrison can be done by civvies, right? Forget PS, they could be done by contracted civvies way cheaper, since the government wouldn't be responsible for their pensions, or their health care for that matter. There's work that keeps mbrs theoretically prepared to deploy, but if you've already said they can't deploy, all that's left is work a civvie contractor could do, and for much cheaper.

Once you de-link UoS from being a CAF member requirement, you've admitted that you don't actually need the CAF member at all. At least, not _as_ a CAF member.


----------



## George Wallace

Nudibranch said:
			
		

> Exactly - in PS and private sector.
> 
> You can't remove UoS from the CAF requirement, because removing that removes...well, the necessity of having actual CAF members. After all, many if not most of the jobs done in garrison can be done by civvies, right? Forget PS, they could be done by contracted civvies way cheaper, since the government wouldn't be responsible for their pensions, or their health care for that matter. There's work that keeps mbrs theoretically prepared to deploy, but if you've already said they can't deploy, all that's left is work a civvie contractor could do, and for much cheaper.
> 
> Once you de-link UoS from being a CAF member requirement, you've admitted that you don't actually need the CAF member at all. At least, not _as_ a CAF member.



You kind of lost me on this.  I do agree that Universality of Service does have some problems.  It is written in "Black and White with not shades of Grey".  My wife, who is in the PS, can't understand why the CAF has a compulsory Retirement age of 60 (now), while the rest of the PS and nation do not.  To tell you the truth, it may be a good question, if you look at some 60 year olds who are in good health and physically fit, capable to still fill some roles in the CAF; and the 30 year olds who have been heavy chain smokers and drinkers and look twice their age.  Of course this is a general statement, as not all 60 year olds are still in good health and physically fit, nor are all 30 year olds heavy drinkers and chain smokers.  There are of course those who are the exceptions, and Regulations written in "Black and White with not shades of Grey" leave no leeway to any exceptions to the rule.  Is it worth pondering?  Perhaps?  Perhaps not?


----------



## Nudibranch

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You kind of lost me on this.  I do agree that Universality of Service does have some problems.  It is written in "Black and White with not shades of Grey".  My wife, who is in the PS, can't understand why the CAF has a compulsory Retirement age of 60 (now), while the rest of the PS and nation do not.  To tell you the truth, it may be a good question, if you look at some 60 year olds who are in good health and physically fit, capable to still fill some roles in the CAF; and the 30 year olds who have been heavy chain smokers and drinkers and look twice their age.  Of course this is a general statement, as not all 60 year olds are still in good health and physically fit, nor are all 30 year olds heavy drinkers and chain smokers.  There are of course those who are the exceptions, and Regulations written in "Black and White with not shades of Grey" leave no leeway to any exceptions to the rule.  Is it worth pondering?  Perhaps?  Perhaps not?



There are certainly CAF members who couldn't sustain a physically heavy deployment, _but meet UoS on paper_. Sometimes they're found during pre-dep screening and sent on the way to a PCAT; but in times when the CAF doesn't deploy many people, they remain in the CAF as long as they do their annual PT test and nothing really scary comes up on their medicals. We all know that. 

But I think there's a difference between "look, we all know this happens", and actually changing the rules to drop the UoS requirement. Retained-with-PCAT mbrs are acknowledged as being on their way out, after all (I mean the ones with release MEL's getting a couple years' retention from DMCA, not the random G3's who are just continuing in the career with minor restrictions). Those mbrs in JPSU are either on the way out via the PCAT process, or hoped to improve and return to duties - including UoS. 

Once you drop UoS, officially, questions are bound to come up as to why this job would need to be done be a soldier at all. A soldier may do various jobs in peacetime, but theoretically at least the point is for him or her to deploy if the country needs it. If they don't have to meet UoS, if we say it's ok to be a fully employed, not-on-the-way-out CAF mbr, you just totally can't deploy (or work full time, or go to the field, or whatever) - why would you need to be a CAF mbr at all? Why not put a civ in that job? For that matter, why not recruit into the CAF a Type 1 diabetic who needs to see their doc every 3 weeks; after all, a garrison job would suit such a mbr fine, and they might be the holy grail when it comes to making PowerPoints or processing TD claims!


----------



## Pieman

> Once you drop UoS, officially, questions are bound to come up as to why this job would need to be done be a soldier at all.


Isn't the purpose of the UoS to meet NATO requirements to have X many deployable troops?


----------



## mariomike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My wife, who is in the PS, can't understand why the CAF has a compulsory Retirement age of 60 (now), while the rest of the PS and nation do not.



With a 2 per cent accrual rate, if compulsory retirement is age 60, members joining after age 25 will have a retirement income of less than the allowed 70 per cent of their pre-retirement earnings.

Because of the nature of their work, Police Officers, Firefighters and Paramedics now benefit from an increased annual pension accrual rate of 2.33 per cent for each year of credited service. 

Perhaps this is something that could be considered for the military.


----------



## dapaterson

Frankly, a roll-back to 2% for police, fire, and paramedic would be more in order.  Given changes to life expectancy, those folks may draw pension benefits for twice as long as their working life.  The pension plans cannot support that without radical increases to contributions.

Besides, there is nothing anywhere that states that anyone is entitled to receive a 70% pension.  The military needs to be supportive of its personnel, but also should retain the primacy of operations in its personnel policies - CRA 60 should never be the right to serve to 60, but rather the right of the CF to retain someone to age 60 if there is a need.  And sometimes there is a need to let good peopel go to keep the insitution healthy.


The CF does review and amend standards as new info comes out - hence the move to CRA 60 from CRA 55.


----------



## Teager

I think the big question here is if I a member is injured/ill can't work on a full time basis, is not in receipt of a pension or even if they are and is not eligible for permanent disability what do we do with them?

Stokerwes has pointed this out and many have families to support. Do we change VAC and have that person fall under permanent disability or create a new category? Or do we say no you can work part time even though your struggling with your injury/illness and are most likely stuck working for minimum wage (possibly more).

I think the hardest part for any injured/ill member is taking care of and supporting there family. When you get told your pay is dropping dramatically the panic button gets hit. This causes much stress on families not to mention the rest of the stress that comes with the bureaucratic bs of the system. At the end of the day many families are split up because of this. It would be interesting to see stats on amount of families broken apart because of the system. IMO losing ones family is way more devastating then being injured/ill. So when soldiers are fighting for better benefits are trying to get a decent paying job its not just for them but for their families. IMO a soldier is going to fight tooth and nail for what they hold closest to them.
/End Rant/


----------

