# Pension Act vs NVA Lifetime Comparison



## prairefire

It must be age that made me do this but I turned 58 yesterday and have survived a triple bypass surgery and post op infections that put me into septic shock and almost killed me..........So the last year has been interesting to say the least.

I have attached a pdf of a spreadsheet that I prepared over my complete post military history with DVA. These are the actual amounts from 1992 until 2015. The rates used for 2016 are the new announced rates for those receiving Disability Pension Payments. For the forecast going forward from 2016 I used a conservative index of 1 per cent per year as it has not been far off that for the last several years.
This is my case file with DVA with the actual events and the dates received. This is a very clear illustration for the pre-NVC veteran of how the NVC penalizes us. Although I am not up to speed on all of the supposed new benefits most of them are not available to pre NVC vets because of time limitations. 

The spreadsheet is very large and comprehensive but should be fairly easy to view at about 150% or 200% zoom. If you have any comments or questions I would very much like to hear what you have to say.

Each of us serve or have served in our own time and place. We have all had very similar yet different experiences. The one thing we all have in common is that we volunteered to serve and place our fellow soldiers and our units ahead of ourselves while we served.  :yellow: :yellow:


----------



## Wookilar

Nice work.

I've been trying to figure out my own differences. I'm currently sitting at 47% (with 1 departmental review and 1 appeal in process) with three injuries currently under 5% each (1, 1 and 3 lol) with 2 of those processed under the old system.

While I was lucky and had a brilliant (and strong willed lol) NinerDomestic that made sure my lump sums went into the right places, I would have taken a monthly sum in a heart beat instead.


----------



## dunlop303

Very nice work indeed,

It would make me sick to see what my chart would look like, rated at %100 between 2008 and now giving roughly 282k and I am 30.


----------



## Occam

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> Very nice work indeed,
> 
> It would make me sick to see what my chart would look like, rated at %100 between 2008 and now giving roughly 282k and I am 30.



Calculated on a napkin, using July 2008 as your eligibility date, married/no children pension rates, and using 2% as indexing annually (it's been less, but since this is a rough calculation, I didn't bother looking them up):

You'd have received approximately $273319 in monthly disability pension payments to date.


----------



## dunlop303

Lovely!

So this is my last year "ahead" of the system.


----------



## Occam

Yup.

The Disability Award is exceptionally kind to older veterans.  Younger veterans, not so much.


----------



## Teager

Under the old pension system when it says married and or with children does that mean you were married and had kids at time of injury to recieve that rate? Or can it apply to later in life?


----------



## Occam

Teager said:
			
		

> Under the old pension system when it says married and or with children does that mean you were married and had kids at time of injury to recieve that rate? Or can it apply to later in life?



If I understand your question, it applies as soon as you have a wife or child, whether it's at the eligibility date or later.  My eligibility date was 31 March 2006, and I received the spousal supplement as of that date.  When my son was born in 2007, that supplement was added as well.


----------



## Teager

Thanks Occam that answers it.

This comes from the Equitas Society Facebook page. I only took a piece but a debrief of what was discussed with the stakeholders can be found there.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1011307165599547&id=244969555566649



> Lump sum versus pension: This is the elephant in the room of the veterans community but I’m heartened to say it was not avoided or danced around. There was real genuine discussion at both meetings as to what the mandate letter was ordering and what the remedy would look like. No decision point was reached yet, but there was a general consensus that there is value to a pension for lifelong financial wellbeing, which contributes to mental well being. There was also an acceptance that there is value to receiving some money up front, especially for the morbidly wounded, as they will have instant and large costs. The consensus that was reached is that the solution would most likely require some form of amalgamation of the two concepts, or a hybrid solution. As well, it could require completely new legislation so if thats the case it will almost certainly require cabinet approval.


----------



## prairefire

This is just an update to the calculation. One of the members here informed me that there was an error in the formulas of the spreadsheet. I have corrected it and here is the corrected revised amount. The net affect makes the lump sum payment look a little bit worse.


----------



## prairefire

This article in the Ottawa Citizen sort of links to my original post.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/injured-veterans-to-get-choice-over-pensions-or-lump-sum-payments

I never wanted a lump sum but was forced to take it even though I enrolled and then left the CF while the Pension Act was in force.So this article leads me to two questions: 

(1) How are they, or will they, adjust the lump sum to be a more equitable choice between pension or lump sum. The current difference in my example would be about $500 K and for some others even higher. Think about a 21 year old soldier with traumatic and life changing injuries. The average lifetime differential is huge. 

(2) For those of us who were released while the Pension Act was in force and then forced under the NVA Lump Sums for new claims; and not being eligible for most of the new programs because of time limitations; how are they going to correct what was done in the many cases such as mine. 

I know that I would need either immediate conversion to a pension and treating the lump sums as advances to be repaid or give me a lump sum of somewhere between $400K or $500K as a corrective payment in lieu of a pension. Remember when I joined the CF the promise that was made to me and many of my generation was that there was a disability pension available in case of life changing injuries that were service related. I was long gone from the CF when the NVA came along. Any such arbitrary changes of benefits in the civilian world would meet quickly with litigation and Employment Standards office getting involved. I know the CF is not like a civilian employer but generally in both civil and criminal law the courts look very unfavourably upon retroactive application of laws.


----------



## Rifleman62

This is also being discussed here where the same article was posted on 20 Jan 16.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/105851.200.html

I bet that the choice will be the current lump sum payment system that is awarded optioned as a monthly/annual pension. 

But, hey everything is sunshine and butterflies.


----------



## Teager

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I bet that the choice will be the current lump sum payment system that is awarded optioned as a monthly/annual pension.



That already exists. I don't believe it is that. The article prairiefire put up is a bit more detailed than the one in the Sun. If it turned out to be the LS spread out they know the lawsuit would continue and they would be blasted by the vet community. Apparently CVA is taking some credit for this plan. I don't see the CVA pushing for something that already exists.

One thing that does point to either a return to the old pension or LS increase is the fact that the Minister has been asked if the government can afford pensions considering the current conditions of the economy. There's clearly going to be an increase in $. Come this Spring I believe we will have our answers on this issue and possibly on some others. Hopefully it's good news.


----------



## Rifleman62

OK, thanks, keep your fingers crossed, but I do not trust the LPC.


----------



## ModlrMike

You realize that we're talking about the same brain trust that got us into this position? I have serious doubts that they're actually interested in getting us out of it.


----------



## TCM621

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You realize that we're talking about the same brain trust that got us into this position? I have serious doubts that they're actually interested in getting us out of it.


The NVC was a Liberal invention and while JT may be youngish he seems very keen on following the established party brain trust. The LPC priority has been,  and always will be,  keeping the "natural governing party" in power as much as possible. They don't have as much of an idealogy as either the NFL or the CPC,  so they have a lot more leeway to say whatever they need to to appease as many groups as possible. The classic example was trying to seem tough on terror while marching in parades supporting terrorists (ie the Tamil Tigers).


----------



## CountDC

Occam said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> The Disability Award is exceptionally kind to older veterans.  Younger veterans, not so much.



Find this interesting as when the switch was being made it was explained to me that it was due to exactly that group requesting the change to lump sum.


----------



## Occam

CountDC said:
			
		

> Find this interesting as when the switch was being made it was explained to me that it was due to exactly that group requesting the change to lump sum.



In early 2006, I seem to recall general message traffic to the masses advising them that the ability to claim under the Pension Act was rapidly coming to an end.  Nobody I knew wanted anything to do with the NVC - and I hand carried my own disability claim application to the Post Office, had them postmark it with that day's date (31 March 2006), and I saved the photocopy of the postmarked envelope until I was absolutely certain I was being processed under the Pension Act.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CountDC said:
			
		

> Find this interesting as when the switch was being made it was explained to me that it was due to exactly that group requesting the change to lump sum.



Who explained that to you? I have claims under both systems and I can assure you, that no one that I know dealing with VAC prefers the NVC over the lifetime pension.


----------



## prairefire

I recently met with me MP and showed him this spreadsheet and he was quite surprised. He was under the impression that the NVC was such a great Act and had all these wonderful new programs. My MP is a Liberal. The background information he was provided with had all these impressive large dollar values of program services available under the NVC. I quickly demonstrated how many of the Veteran's are unable to access these programs and in my words the NVC was a cost saving exercise which was much like a Potemkin Village with no real substance. He was unaware of the dollar cost to the Veteran, especially those that had been released prior to the implementation of the NVC. He did not readily grasp the fact that many released members of the CF have injuries that do not completely manifest themselves when released. That injuries incurred in your service will become quality of life factors sometimes years after the event.

He said that the spreadsheet was enlightening and more informative then any of the DVA background notes provided to him. I explained that this was just one example at the mid-range of impact and that there will be significant numbers much worse and some much less.

What I draw from this is just how uninformed our MPs are, and what we must do to help inform them. If anyone wishes to have some help in preparing a similar spreadsheet illustrating your pension differential I would be happy to assist where I can, I will also prepare a copy of the actual spreadsheet that you can download and work on in your own time if members think it is worthwhile. They could be a useful briefing note if any of you have the opportunity to speak with your MP or anyone else of influence.

I am also attaching a PDF called Reference which provides a well prepared summary of the history of the Veterans Pension since WW1
 up to 2004. It is lengthy but a careful and patient read may give you an idea of how we ended up where we are today.


----------



## captloadie

If the choice is a financial one, and the new Gov't can only afford one of two options, which would better meet the needs of all veterans:
1) a lifetime pension, but repeal all the other new programs and benefits that came with the NVA; or
2) the current NVA stable of benefits, with more effort to ensure all veterans have access to the various programs

The spreadsheet is a vary good comparison of cash flow to a member. But is it really all about the money? Are there other, better tangible benefits the program could be providing in lieu of bigger payouts or monthly pensions (state of the art prostheses, access to and payment of experimental treatments, top notch mental health programs and providers, etc.)

I ask this because the argument I hear seems to consistently be about the money that a vet receives, and not about the care and assistance he should be getting. In all the threads where VAC is discussed, few of the discussions revolve around on what services could be improved, or where veterans have been denied access to a service or quality of life items (although I could be wrong, and marionmike will probably use his googlefu to provide links to correct me  ;D)

I ask because I don't know. I, as of now, don't yet have a personal stake in this, and hopefully never will.


----------



## prairefire

You raise some good points, but I believe what we need is some of the specialized programs that come with the NVC but a return to lifetime pensions. Some of the NVC programs existed immediately after WW2 as noted in the reference paper in my previous post. I had four uncles who returned after WW2 and availed themselves of various programs like the Land Grants and Education Grants that were then available. Only 2 of them had lifetime pensions because of hearing loss (one was a gunner) or other injuries.

There is a psychological importance that I know I feel for my pension. It says I served, I was injured, and the Nation cares. I am probably not explaining it very well but it is very real.

The other thing to remember is that between my PTSD and inability to control my behaviour prior to receiving treatment many years later; and because of my back injuries my ability to keep long term employment has been impaired. I have been let go from several jobs where my stress reactions would result in unacceptable behaviour with otherwise excellent work ethic.

This is not uncommon with Veterans who have injuries and it is one of the purposes for the Pension. To quote from the  Pension Act:

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


----------



## blackberet17

The "original" pension program, going back to First World War, was a constantly evolving document and process, as was the government department charged with the care of returning wounded soldiers.

Back in 1919, as the war ended and the mass influx of returning soldiers occurred - and with it returning wounded veterans - pensions and programs were cobbled together to care for the returning troops. There were vocational rehabilitation programs, land grants, education grants.

Most of those programs from the early 1920s would be considered peanuts (as were the pension rates), compared to the programs and benefits brought in during and immediately after the Second World War...which again saw similar but improved education grants, pension benefits and so on.

The Pension Act quoted above dates from 1995...but traces its lineage to the original document of the 1920s, and its rewriting of the 1940s. If you compared the Pension Act and the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act (2006) side-by-side, you would find huge chunks of it are almost word-for-word, specifically within Part 3 of both documents, which deal directly with pension/award benefits.

The CFMVRCA, while to many a flawed document (including myself, I will say), is the sum of all of the previous pension acts and all the additional programs not otherwise written into legislation before (and some which were). Also, the CFMVRCA, once enacted, was never intended as stone tablet handed to Moses - it was intended as a living document, to be continuously reviewed and expanded, to ensure it continued to meet the changing needs of veterans and CAF members.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), it took years of uproar before changes and updates were made to the legislation. And I for one hope this government and future governments to follow will continue to review the legislation and improve the benefits and programs to in turn continue to meet the ever-changing needs of those who have served.


----------



## prairefire

I look at this through very personal eyes, and while I think there are a few benefits in the NVC they are difficult to access for most of us and in my own opinion have little to no benefit for me or my family. I guess there are 3 main considerations for me:

1. I have experience reduced earnings and likely a reduced quality of retirement when that point in my life arrives. The Pension accounts for adjustments for children under 18 and marriage and helps to correct for the reduced quality and quantity of life for those injured.

2. I have PTSD and a back injury from a night drop all due to service. This has also been an aggravating factor but not the sole cause of my coronary artery disease. I had an overall reduced quality of life and likely a reduced life expectation. These are items that the Pension Act was specifically designed to assist in.

3. Should I die prematurely my wife will receive one full year of 100% of my current pension and after 1 year 50% for the balance of her life. 
Which recognizes in a small but significant role she has played in supporting me and helping with my injuries.

I would gladly give up all this for a return to physical and mental health without complications.


----------



## Rifleman62

prairiefire: 


> 3. Should I die prematurely my wife will receive one full year of 100% of my current pension and after 1 year 50% for the balance of her life. Which recognizes in a small but significant role she has played in supporting me and helping with my injuries.



Are you speaking of your military pension or VAC pension? If it is VAC you have to be at a certain level under the old Act for a beneficiary to receive 50%.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/after-injury/disability-benefits/disability-pension/survivor-benefits

If the pensioner was receiving a pension of 48% or greater, the survivor is entitled to a full survivor's pension. If the pensioner was receiving a pension between the 5% and 47% rate, the survivor will receive one-half of the Disability Pension that was paid to the pensioner.


----------



## CountDC

recceguy said:
			
		

> Who explained that to you? I have claims under both systems and I can assure you, that no one that I know dealing with VAC prefers the NVC over the lifetime pension.



Wish I could help but my memory is not that great.  Best I can give you is that I was in Ottawa.  It was supposedly the older group that was thinking the lump sum would be better for them as they would make more off of it.


----------



## prairefire

I am referring to my Pension under the DVA Pension Act. It is 100% of the pensionable benefit (20% for me) for one year including married and children's supplements.After one year it is 50% of the pensionable benefit plus married and children's supplements (until they are 18) for life.


----------



## Teager

It seems Veterans are getting impatient on answers about pension vs lump sum.



> Released from the military for medical reasons in 2012, Patrick Wilkins was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and irritable bowel syndrome from a tour in Afghanistan; chronic back pain from falling out of a helicopter on a training exercise; and two bad knees from years of marching with a rucksack.
> 
> The 23-year veteran believes that if he had left the military seven years earlier, he would have received a disability pension of around $60,000 a year. Instead, because of changes to veterans’ benefits introduced in 2006, he was given a lump-sum payment of $245,000.
> 
> Wilkins used the money to buy a house in Kelowna, B.C. Since then, however, he has struggled to make ends meet. A motorcycle tourism business has yet to take off, while his PTSD has scared off prospective employers. “There are days I just don’t function as a human being,” he says.
> 
> The 45-year-old does receive a $1,600 monthly allowance from Veterans Affairs for not being able to work. But he says that amounts to less than half what he would get after taxes if he had been able to take the pension, and leaves him barely above the poverty line.
> 
> Wilkins is one of more than 76,000 injured veterans who have received a total of $2.8-billion in lump-sum payments since lifelong disability pensions were abolished in 2006. But he is also one of those who wants to be included in the Liberal government’s pledge to reintroduce the disability pensions.
> 
> “I don’t want anything that I’m not entitled to,” he says, “but when I started off my career in the military, the pension was promised if I got injured. They agreed to it, and I agreed to it.”
> 
> While veterans such as Wilkins say offering pensions to everyone injured in uniform is an issue of fairness and equality, the move could also cost billions for a government already staring at a much larger deficit than originally promised.
> 
> The Liberals were the only party that promised to reintroduce disability pensions for injured veterans as an alternative to the benefits and services offered through what’s called the “New Veterans Charter,” the system implemented in 2006. Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr told the Citizen last month that his department was drawing up options to make good on the Liberals’ pension promise.
> 
> Details have been scarce. Hehr declined to say whether the disability pensions would be exactly the same as those offered to veterans before 2006. His office also won’t say if the pensions will be offered retroactively to those injured veterans forced to take one-time payments upon release from the military.
> 
> “The department is looking at options on how best to provide for the needs of all veterans in a viable and sustainable manner, which includes the mandate commitment on pensions,” Hehr’s spokesman, Christian Duval, said in an email. “It would be premature to discuss considered options at this time.”
> 
> Former NDP MP Peter Stoffer, his party’s longtime veterans critic, says he disagreed with reintroducing the lifelong pensions. He says he received numerous complaints about the old system, and that the new system is better – even if some veterans don’t receive as much money from the government – because the focus is on helping injured veterans find civilian careers. This was especially important with a new generation of veterans from Afghanistan.
> 
> “The whole genesis of the charter was you did not want to give a 23-year-old a monthly pension and just leave him alone,” said Stoffer. “That’s generally what the old system was. Instead, you wanted to help them become productive members of society.”
> 
> Former veterans affairs minister Erin O’Toole says the system in place under the New Veterans Charter also directed the majority of resources to veterans who really needed them. Under the old system, veterans who suffered even minor hearing loss or back and joint pain could get hundreds of dollars a month for life.
> 
> “In those cases, are you targeting a lot of funds at where you need it most? A hearing injury?” said O’Toole, who was re-elected and is now the Conservative public safety critic. “Where you need it is moderate and serious injuries.”
> 
> Both Stoffer and O’Toole acknowledge shortcomings in the new system. But while they disagree on the extent of these, both believe the issues can be addressed without reintroducing pensions, which would also be prohibitively expensive.
> 
> The Liberals did not cost out the pensions in their platform, though they did promise to invest about $143 million this year to increase benefits under the New Veterans Charter.
> 
> Ray McInnis of the Royal Canadian Legion says reinstating the old pension system “wasn’t on our radar at any time.” Instead, the Legion has been asking the government to improve the new system, including topping up the income of seriously disabled veterans to 100 per cent of what they were making in the military. The current rate is 75 per cent, and Liberals have said they will increase it to 90 per cent.
> 
> Lawyer Don Sorochan is representing six Afghan veterans locked in a class-action lawsuit with the federal government for more than three years. The lawsuit, currently on hold until May as the veterans wait to see what the new government will do, centred on whether the New Veterans Charter fell short of the benefits offered under the old system.
> 
> “The minute the Liberals announced they’re going to return to the pensions, I basically asked people who were Liberals: ‘What do you have in mind?’ ” Sorochan said. “I don’t think they knew.”
> 
> O’Toole alleges the Liberals simply made a promise to win votes, and that they are now struggling with their promise.
> 
> “There’s fiscal realities to some of these things that have to be addressed,” he said. “And it’s irresponsible to get some veterans and some advocacy groups believing that there’s going to be some major, retroactively applying payment of some sort.”
> 
> But veterans argue the issue is one of fairness.
> 
> “Will we be given the opportunity to accept a monthly disability pension?” asked Sheldon Maerz, who received several thousand dollars for a knee injury in 2009 that he says would have paid him a few hundred dollars a month for life under the old system. “This is the key question for men and women such as myself.”
> 
> David MacLeod, who was medically released from the Canadian Army in 2010 due to chronic leg pain from a training accident, said the uncertainty has ratcheted up anxiety among veterans who did not get disability pensions.
> 
> “The minister must be clear when he states that there will be pensions for life,” said the 27-year veteran. “What does that mean: the lump sum stretched over time, some cobbled-together system that is eroded over time, or the proven Pension Act?”
> 
> lberthiaume@postmedia.com
> 
> Twitter.com/leeberthiaume
> 
> Disability Pensions versus the New Veterans Charter
> 
> Until 2006, disability pensions were offered to all Canadian veterans who sustained injuries while in the military. They received a monthly, tax-free payment based on the extent of their injuries.
> 
> Passed by all parties in 2005, and implemented by the Conservatives in 2006, the New Veterans Charter changed this. The pension was replaced with a lump-sum payment based on the extent of the injury, along with services such as rehabilitation and vocational training to help with the transition to civilian life.
> 
> The charter was heavily criticized, however, as not providing sufficient assistance to injured veterans. The Conservative government introduced improvements in 2011 and again in 2015, including an allowance beyond the age of 65. Most veterans groups have since indicated they support an improved charter. But some say it still falls far short of the benefits offered under the old pension system.



http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/disabled-veterans-still-await-the-governments-plan


----------



## prairefire

Does anyone out there think the Budget will have anything new for Vets such as the return to pension promise?
I have heard that there is a possibility of an announcement in April with respect to the Equitas case that is in abeyance until May.
But what that might be is anyone's guess.


----------



## Teager

Well I have seen the Minister say to those asking for an update on the promises made to Veterans to keep an eye on the budget. What that could mean tho is anyone's guess.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

They better start doing something. All the self gratuitous selfies of the Minister and Sunny Ways in Toronto is getting real old, real fast. It's becoming the liberal party's go to solution instead of fixing what's broke. Pictures, smiles and unicorns.


----------



## RobA

I'm looking for three specific things Trudeau said:

1. Raising the Earnings Loss benefit to 90%

2. Restoring pensions (and what you plan on doing for vets forced to take the lump sum. To ignore them is to create a second tier of vets, those unlucky enough to be hurt during the Harper years, which pretty much encompasses the totality of Canada's most significant war effort since Korea.)

3. The Canadian GI bill, tuition at iniversity


----------



## Teager

Well Rob just had a look at the Ministers FB and someone asked about the pensions for the millionth time and today actually got a response from him. All he said was "stay tuned". Vets don't seem to have much patience left which is understandable so hopefully he doesn't mean stay tuned for another couple of years.


----------



## Rifleman62

You may or you may not find this interesting re Dear Minister.

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/

and

https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/


----------



## RobA

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You may or you may not find this interesting re Dear Minister.
> 
> https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/
> 
> and
> 
> https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/



In what way is that interesting as it relates to the discussion?


----------



## BinRat55

I think Rifleman is losing it...


----------



## RobA

So......no lifelong pension. Doesn't look like the university is a go.

The budget DOES increase the size of the disability award. No word on how much, and also if the difference will be back paid to those who already have gotten theirs.

Also, "expand the PIA" whatever that means.

From the G&M:

"Mr. Trudeau made several promises to Canada’s veterans during the election, which he delivered on in the budget. The government will hire more case officers and reopen Veterans Affairs offices shuttered by the former Conservative government. The Liberals will also increase the disability award for injuries or illnesses re­sulting from military service and expand the permanent impairment allowance.­ But the Liberals did not follow through on campaign promise to re-establish lifetime pensions as an option for injured veterans."


----------



## RobA

OK, it looks like the disability award was raised to $360,000.

No word if that's retroactive yet. Frankly, I don't see how it can be, since the $360,000 number suggests its directed to appease the Veritas lawsuit, which would not make sense if it wasn't meant to be retroactive


----------



## bdcasey916

According to this site, cp24.com, it is indeed retro to 2006.  

http://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/winners-and-losers-from-first-federal-liberal-budget-1.2828122


----------



## RobA

Pretty sweet. 

What was the old ceiling? $260,000?


----------



## the 48th regulator

$ 310378.59  is the current Max

Disability Award Rate Table 2016


----------



## RobA

Hm. That must go up incrementally yearly? I'm at 100%, but only got $260,000. Of course, I got mine in 2008.

I wonder how they're going to do the retroactivty? As in, will it also include the small annual increases?


----------



## Teager

Article going into more detail.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/22/benefits-enhanced-but-no-return-yet-to-life-long-pensions-for-veterans/


----------



## the 48th regulator

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/download-telecharger/index-en.html

You can download the complete Budget plan on the above link.


----------



## PuckChaser

John Tescione said:
			
		

> http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/download-telecharger/index-en.html
> 
> You can download the complete Budget plan on the above link.


As DS, you should know that spamming links is not allowed. You posted it in the politics thread, we only need the link once, especially to a 200 page PDF when this thread only deals with 1/2 pages in it.


----------



## RobA

Good news all around, although still room to improve.

I wonder how long until we see the bump in Earnings Loss and retroactive DA ?


----------



## PuckChaser

The increase is $50k based on this year's numbers, 100% for 2016 is $310k, 2017 will be the $360k from the budget.


----------



## the 48th regulator

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As DS, you should know that spamming links is not allowed. You posted it in the politics thread, we only need the link once, especially to a 200 page PDF when this thread only deals with 1/2 pages in it.



And as a Mentor, you should also know that you can take that kind of comment to PM, and not disrupt the thread.

Posting links, that are relevant to various topics is allowed.

Sorry, did I miss the memo that assigned you as the DS to the DS?


----------



## RobA

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The increase is $50k based on this year's numbers, 100% for 2016 is $310k, 2017 will be the $360k from the budget.



So we wouldn't get that cheque until 2017?


----------



## PuckChaser

RobA said:
			
		

> So we wouldn't get that cheque until 2017?


Likely not, but it's all how VAC is directed to administer it. I wouldn't expect a cheque for at least a year, if it takes 7 months to adjudicate someone losing their legs in an IED strike, imagine how long it's going to take for them to go through every approved claim since 2006.


----------



## Teager

Little bit confused here but is the government lowering the minimum amount for ELB?



> Finally, the calculation of the minimum benefit would be amended to be based on a senior private's salary instead of a basic corporal's salary.



http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/plan/ch5-en.html#_Toc446106788


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'll grant them, they went from application to decision in 6 weeks for me in 2011.  I was shocked.


----------



## PuckChaser

Reading the legalese, it looks like a small increase as the earnings lost uses the greater of salary at release and senior private, which would make a slightly larger gap.


----------



## prairefire

My take on these "enhancements" is that they all have some benefit to various veteran's in some little way, I feel they are more of a stop gap and not, I hope, the final answer. I suspect combined with the earlier post about the Minister's comment on Facebook and what I have heard about an impending series of meetings between the Min of VA and the Min of Defence with the Equitas people and their legal team that is supposed to take place in April there may be more to come. The new money in the Budget does not even come close to what the Equitas litigation is proposing as a solution. 

I also believe that until they have an estimate of the cost of return to pensions determined no reasonable government would want to start down a road without a map that may end up full of expensive surprises. In my earlier projection they would have to pay me about $535K more over the 23 years to age 80. At 57 I am at the upper end of the age spectrum. I am in total 85% disabled under the Pension Act and NVC. Many of you are in your late 20s or early 30s and may have more severe injuries.  

At some point I suspect the DM and the assorted ADMs said to the Minister do you know how much your promise will cost?


----------



## PuckChaser

I doubt money is the issue. They were willing to spend an extra $8B to buy the First Nations vote, and $10B on public transit to buy the downtown Toronto vote. They could have made the deficit $5B higher and retroactively restored lifetime pensions without batting an eye. They didn't, as there is no political will to do it. Veterans got "just enough" here, to keep us quiet.


----------



## Teager

From comments I"m already seeing just the amount the Liberals are increasing the budget is enough for the general public to say well there you go there giving you Billions. Bye bye public support.


----------



## Rifleman62

New VAC office in the Minister of National Defence riding I believe, reopening nine others, plus hiring more Public Servants.

Sorry guys the Liberals lied.





> ....... the Ministers FB and someone asked about the pensions for the millionth time and today actually got a response from him. All he said was "stay tuned".



So stay tuned. 

I posted 





> You may or you may not find this interesting re Dear Minister.


 just so you could agree or disagree with the personal attributes of the VAC Minister. I wasn't impressed, but I've lost it.

IMHO, I don't think the increase to the disability awards for you fellows was much. Peanuts in the scheme of things. Peanuts. But I will stay tuned.


----------



## PuckChaser

Apparently the Canadian Press thinks its a "big win for Veterans". They're missing the fact that this small change is $5.8B over 5 years. Imagine what lifetime pensions would cost, not to mention free university tuition.... no wonder they conveniently left it out of the budget.


----------



## the 48th regulator

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Apparently the Canadian Press thinks its a "big win for Veterans". They're missing the fact that this small change is $5.8B over 5 years. Imagine what lifetime pensions would cost, not to mention free university tuition.... no wonder they conveniently left it out of the budget.



You do realize that this is the first of 4 Budgets.


----------



## bigcletus

Yes, $30 billion in debt times 4 years, $120Billion, min...great job...(sarcasm off)


----------



## the 48th regulator

bigcletus said:
			
		

> Yes, $30 billion in debt times 4 years, $120Billion, min...great job...(sarcasm off)



And you actually believe this was created in the last Hundred days?

Where were you in the last ten years known as the decade of decay?

bigcletus' Canada priortot he current Government


----------



## brihard

As John points out, this is the first budget of four. Nobody who has been paying real attention expected much more than this in this budget. A number of the projects are longer term. We discussed a lot of this at the VAC stakeholder summit in December (I was there as part of the discussions), and the consensus was that much of this will take time to do right. 

- A flat out return to the Pension Act in time for 2016 budget was offered, and we unanimously rejected it. The consensus was to take the time to do it right and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- The educational benefit is achievable, but some issues of criteria and definition need to be hammered out.
- The edicated veterans/first responders in patient mental health facility will be a project that takes considerable time.


Buried in the budget is talk of further consultation with veterans. Back in July two ministerial advisory groups were established by Min. O'Toole, one for policy/NVC, and one for service delivery. They are going to narrow these groups and create four new ones to focus on specific subsets of veterans issues. The committees will be comprised of a combination of 'layperson' veterans, representatives of traditional/larger veterans' organizations, and professionalsclinicians where applicable. Some very well respected and knowledgeable people are part of this. This consultation is going ot be necessary to flesh out some of the promises further over another year so they can bring them towards being deliverable.

The cynic in me thinks that we may see a return to a pension option happen in the last budget before the next election.


----------



## Wookilar

Brihard, thanks for the details. Nice to know what is going on in the background. It mostly goes unseen and swallowed by the sound and fury of the 30 second sound bites.

I have to agree on the sentiment re: pensions. We are talking about a great deal of money after all, combined with value judgements, cost-benefit analysis and politics so I would prefer a cold sober look at  the issues going forward.

And I hope to all the crown royal in Saskatchewan that it happens before the election, else I fear it will get swallowed in rhetoric.


----------



## brihard

The elephant in the room is the Equitas lawsuit. They remain in abeyance for the time being, and several plaintiffs/advisors are part of the ministerial advisory committees. Meaningful consultation through those committees in conjunction with real forward progress are necessary to keep the suit on hold. It the Equitas group comes to feel that the government is not progressing in good faith towards remedying the NVC's considerable financial shortcomings, the lawsuit can easily resume. Thus far VAC has been desperately trying to avoid that. I'm not sure our new government properly recognizes the significance of the lawsuit.


----------



## Rifleman62

I hope the Equitas lawsuit goes forward. If it does the media should pick it up so Joe and Jane public who care (few) will realize that the Liberals have reneged on their election promise to Veterans and used the various vocal Vet gps for their own political advantage.

I don't buy into that premise the Liberals may do in future budgets (except before the next election). It was a hot potato during the election re Harper cheating Vets or whatever. It should have been done in this budget, or at least stated it will be in the next budget. What is a few extra billion (??) on top of the projected 30 billion deficit, which is probably be under estimated?

To me, a service member who suffered a grievous injury, receiving -$400 K lifetime is an insult. Doesn't effect me thank goodness.

Don't forget, it was originally Liberal legislation.

Used again.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm not sure our new government properly recognizes the significance of the lawsuit.


Or of the optics of walking away from other litigation (this one, this one and this one, for example) while still only keeping the "pause" button pressed on this one.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Don't forget, it was originally Liberal legislation.


If _only_ there had been another, non-Liberal party, vocal about the military and veterans, in a majority position to make changes to that legislation ...


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Used again.


Can't disagree with you there, for sure.


----------



## PuckChaser

NVC can't be pinned on any one party, they were all complicit in its creation or inability to change it after the fact.


----------



## brihard

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ...so Joe and Jane public who care (few) will realize that the Liberals have reneged on their election promise to Veterans...



They have not. Except where they have explicitly stated that something is to happen immediately, the mandate letter to the minister is for the duration of the Liberal term. With a majority government, they have four years and four budgets.

It would be foolish to expect them to achieve much or most of this mandate in the first budget. "Re-establish life long pensions as an option for our injured veterans" is a project that will take more than the five months they have had. In December the department sought input from a wide array of veterans groups and advocates. They seemed to be listening. They were essentially given the blessing by all these stakeholders to take time and do it right. Note that from the same line item of the mandate letter, a lump some increase (retroactive) WAS already implemented. That was an easy one; low hanging fruit. Likely the increase to Earnings Loss Benefit.

The education benefit will take time to craft, so time must be taken. Establishing a veterans-centric in patient mental health facility (something which presently does not exist in Canada) will certainly take a couple years to plan and cost. Improving standards of care and service delivery is an ongoing process that started last summer well before the change in government. Hiring more case managers is likewise an ongoing process. The target ratio of 25 clients : case worker is a good and ambitious target. The target hitherto has been 30:1, and real numbers have oft been in the vicinity of 55-60:1. This will mean some aggressive hiring- but will put the department in a good position, building up a team of probably fairly young, early/mid career CMs, and getting them into the department as we approach a couple of decades where for demographic reasons such experts will be in high demand. It will take some years for these hires to be complete though.

Altogether an unimpressive budget, but not a failure either. They have also explicitly pledged to continue consultation with veterans over the next year. I am in a position to say that they seem to be expanding their stakeholder outreach, but we will see how that manifests in real action.

I am less interested, with regards to the veterans portfolio, in this budget than I am in the next one. It wil be the coming year that will show us if the Liberals intend to stand by their commitments to veterans.


----------



## Rifleman62

Yes and No. It was Liberal legislation. Election. On the aircraft coming back from the celebrations of the Liberation of the Netherlands (to which Harper invited the leaders of all parliamentary parties), they discussed the legislation and all agreed to pass the Bill, which they did as a new Bill in the new Parliament.

Yes they were all complicit with not changing it. I would say, as I have previously said, the official opposition, the NDP, who were thunderous in braying for Vets, did not bring in any amendments or a new Bill. Whether it would have passed or not is immaterial. The NDP did nothing but talk.

Now do you expect the Liberals to admit that their original legislation was a deplorable misjustice to Vets? 

Do you expect the Liberals to admit that their original legislation was a deplorable misjustice to serving members and future Vets at the same time as they were committing the Cdn forces to combat? ERC has expounded on this several times.

Consult, study, etc, etc = delay, delay = nothing. You will your new boots first.

I hope all those vocal Vet gps start raising the roof with the Liberals, or will they crawl back under their rock.

Used again, and discarded.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ... the official opposition, the NDP, who were thunderous in braying for Vets, did not bring in any amendments or a new Bill. Whether it would have passed or not is immaterial. The NDP did nothing but talk ...


But which party had it in its power to change things with a majority, no matter what the others wanted?  Or did they have some idea that it would cost a WHOLE hockey sock full o' money to implement a full pension system (as opposed to what looks like an insurance system)?


			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> It wil be the coming year that will show us if the Liberals intend to stand by their commitments to veterans.





			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I hope all those vocal Vet gps start raising the roof with the Liberals, or will they crawl back under their rock.


 :nod:


----------



## brihard

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Consult, study, etc, etc = delay, delay = nothing. You will your new boots first.



Some things simply cannot be done immediately orquickly. Veterans groups have been _insisting_ on greater consultation. In that that was a specific requirement of the Equitas lawsuit abeyance. That insistence on consultation resulted in the two Ministerial advisory GRoups created by O'Toole, and which are in the process of being expanded by Hehr. Those groups and the broader stakeholders summit counseled both immediate action on some things - ELB and the enhanced DA as examples, but also taking the time to do it right on restoring a pension and other longer term projects. Other aspects of the mandate will require further input from various professionals, clinicians, and experts, such as anything touching on mental health or on family care.

It takes time for government to do things. One does not simply concoct a bill one day and pass it the next.


----------



## PuckChaser

Brought 25,000 refugees here on a whim. Things can happen quickly if there is political will. We're getting a full defense review and white paper by the fall, I'd argue that's just as complex.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Brihard said:
			
		

> ... That insistence on consultation resulted in the two Ministerial advisory GRoups created by O'Toole, and which are in the process of being expanded by Hehr ...


Curious - the cynic in me sometimes sees consultation as stalling instead of substantive action.  Do you get the feel they're _really_ listening with an aim to change @ this point?


----------



## Rifleman62

Me: 





> Consult, study, etc, etc = delay, delay = nothing.


milnew.ca: 





> curious - the cynic in me sometimes sees consultation as stalling instead of substantive action


PuckChaser: 





> Brought 25,000 refugees here on a whim. Things can happen quickly if there is political _will_. We're getting a full defense review and white paper by the fall, I'd argue that's just as complex.



You got that right Pontiac.

If there is a will, there is a way. The Liberals have no _will_ to do whats right for Vets. 

Well there is a will: we the Liberals _will not_ act on our promise to to the people of Canada (which includes Veterans).


----------



## Rifleman62

Look Brihard, how much consulting must be done when _*EVERYONE*_ knows that Veterans are pissed off, and have been for years and years, about shitty lump sum payments vice life long pension with survivorship benefits?

It's the number _two_ grip about VAC. ;D after deny, deny, die.

Everyone knew, even the Liberals. That's why they promised to bring back life long pensions.


----------



## brihard

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Curious - the cynic in me sometimes sees consultation as stalling instead of substantive action.  Do you get the feel they're _really_ listening with an aim to change @ this point?



Somewhat, yes. It started with Erin O'Toole. He brought together a couple groups of veteransto start diving into service delivery and policy issues. Quick changes were made to forms, MyVAC etc that resulted in some considerable simplifcation for service delivery. RISB and CIB immediately came into the gunsights and have been and will remain the subject of some serious scrutiny of their manifest flaws. But yes, questions were asked of veterans and responses listened to. BAsed on the high bar that O'Toole set, Hehr is bound to continue the consultative process- and at any point if it's felt he's not listening, Equitas can resume legal proceedings. That's the stick.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Look Brihard, how much consulting must be done when _*EVERYONE*_ knows that Veterans are pissed off, and have been for years and years, about shitty lump sum payments vice life long pension with survivorship benefits?
> 
> It's the number _two_ grip about VAC. ;D after deny, deny, die.
> 
> Everyone knew, even the Liberals. That's why they promised to bring back life long pensions.



They promised a pension _option_. As I said, a flat restoration of the pension act was offered for this budget, but would have scrapped NVC. It was floated to and rejected by a broad assortment of veterans brought together by the department to provide direct feedback on veterans issues. Because of that it will be necesary to create a new option that achieves the _optional_ pension objective, AND integrates ELB, PIA, PIA-S, SISIP, CPP, CPP-D, RISB, etc. And it will need to be equitable in result to the old Pension Act amounts, which means in turn that the lump sum option - still inclusive of all of those benefits, plus other one time payments such as CIB - must be brought up to a greater level as yet to be determined by the mathemagicians. All of this needs to be done in a way that does not open a fourth class of vets (Pension Act, NVC without CIB, NVC with CIB, and then a new pension act one) but that rather closes the gaps btween the three existing classes of veterans in receipt of injury/disability benefits, and compensates them adequately. And, the big elephant in the room, all of this needs to keep Equitas happy, OR the government needs to decide that what they're offering is good enough, and accept resumption of the suit.

There is much, much more complexity to this than is apparent to you.


_Edit_ To fix format, and to remove some unnecessary snottiness on my part. Apologies.


----------



## Rifleman62

Thank-you. You know your business obviously from your answer. You are to be commended.

My point of view, without knowing the complexities as you state. 

It will take a long time, for sure, probably just in time for another pension option "promise" four years from now.


----------



## Teager

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/veterans-advocates-question-how-much-federal-cash-infusion-will-help-1.2829524

This article helps with what Brihard is saying. I'm having trouble with my tablet copying what the Minister says and posting it here but basically it's a re cap of what Brihard has been saying.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thanks, Brihard, for the textured, nuanced details - much appreciated.


			
				Teager said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/veterans-advocates-question-how-much-federal-cash-infusion-will-help-1.2829524
> 
> This article helps with what Brihard is saying. I'm having trouble with my tablet copying what the Minister says and posting it here but basically it's a re cap of what Brihard has been saying.


Allow me, then  ;D


> ...  There was no sign of such a change in Tuesday's budget, but Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says the government still backs the promise and needs time to consult on how it can be delivered.
> 
> "This is clearly in my mandate letter," Hehr told The Canadian Press in an interview Wednesday. "We're working towards implementing those commitments we made during the election and going forward."
> 
> Hehr wouldn't speculate on how long that will take ...


... with this from the Mandate Letter (highlights mine) - also attached in case the link doesn't work for you:


> ... In particular, I will expect you to work with your colleagues and through established legislative, regulatory, and Cabinet processes, including our first Budget, to deliver on your top priorities:
> 
> Work with the Minister of National Defence to reduce complexity, overhaul service delivery, and strengthen partnerships between Veterans Affairs and National Defence.
> 
> *Re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans*, and increase the value of the disability award, while ensuring that every injured veteran has access to financial advice and support so that they can determine the form of compensation that works best for them and their families.
> 
> Expand access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance to better support veterans who have had their career options limited by a service-related illness or injury.
> 
> *Provide injured veterans with 90 percent of their pre-release salary, and index this benefit so that it keeps pace with inflation*.
> 
> *Create a new Veterans Education Benefit that will provide full support for the costs of up to four years of college, university, or technical education for Canadian Forces veterans after completion of service.*
> 
> Improve career and vocational assistance for veterans through ensuring that job opportunities for returning veterans are included in Community Benefits Agreements for new federally-funded infrastructure projects.
> 
> Deliver a higher standard of service and care, and ensure that a “one veteran, one standard” approach is upheld.
> 
> Re-open the nine Veterans Affairs service offices recently closed, hire more service delivery staff, and fully implement all of the Auditor General’s recommendations on enhancing mental health service delivery to veterans.
> 
> Create two new centres of excellence in veterans’ care, including one with a specialization in mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder and related issues for both veterans and first responders.
> 
> Provide greater education, counselling, and training for families who are providing care and support to veterans living with physical and/or mental health issues as a result of their service.
> 
> End the time limit for surviving spouses to apply for vocational rehabilitation and assistance services.
> 
> * Increase the veteran survivor’s pension amount from 50 percent to 70 percent.*
> 
> Eliminate the “marriage after 60” clawback clause, so that surviving spouses of veterans receive appropriate pension and health benefits.
> 
> Double funding to the Last Post Fund to ensure that all veterans receive a dignified burial.
> 
> Work with the Minister of National Defence to develop a suicide prevention strategy for Canadian Armed Forces personnel and veterans ...


We'll see ...


----------



## brihard

The CTV news article is pretty decent over all. While Mike Blais is far from an accurate barometer of the collective views of the veterans community, his POV on this one is more or less in line with a lot of what I'm seeing in the community... However much of that is based, as we've seen here, on an incomplete understanding of the complexity of the issue, and an assumption that 'mandate letter' = 'first budget'.

New advisory committees have been established for mental health, family care, commemoration, and care and support (think more but not entirely geriatrics stuff). This is on top of the established (but now shuffled) committees for policy/legislation, and service delivery. The expansion to six committees from two is seeing the inclusion of reps from groups like the LEgion, the UN Peacekeeprs association, NATO vets association, Aboriginal vets association, etc, on top of what was before largely a group of individual veterans, a couple Equitas members, and a couple of civilians with particular military connections/expertise. Full composition of the committees isn't know yet. Overall I'm cautiously optimistic about how it will go, but time will tell. I do believe that they _care_ what the Veterans community has to say, however as always it will be subject to political exigencies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Brihard said:
			
		

> The CTV news article is pretty decent over all. While Mike Blais is far from an accurate barometer of the collective views of the veterans community, his POV on this one is more or less in line with a lot of what I'm seeing in the community... However much of that is based, as we've seen here, on an incomplete understanding of the complexity of the issue, and an assumption that 'mandate letter' = 'first budget'.
> 
> New advisory committees have been established for mental health, family care, commemoration, and care and support (think more but not entirely geriatrics stuff). This is on top of the established (but now shuffled) committees for policy/legislation, and service delivery. The expansion to six committees from two is seeing the inclusion of reps from groups like the LEgion, the UN Peacekeeprs association, NATO vets association, Aboriginal vets association, etc, on top of what was before largely a group of individual veterans, a couple Equitas members, and a couple of civilians with particular military connections/expertise. Full composition of the committees isn't know yet. Overall I'm cautiously optimistic about how it will go, but time will tell. I do believe that they _care_ what the Veterans community has to say, however as always it will be subject to political exigencies.



Brihard,

During these round tables, what was the consensus of restoring life long pensions to those that have had lump sum payments already?


----------



## brihard

recceguy said:
			
		

> Brihard,
> 
> During these round tables, what was the consensus of restoring life long pensions to those that have had lump sum payments already?



"How" isn't yet determined, but this would be part of any acceptable plan. Best version I've heard is that the lump sum is simply treated as a credit towards the lifetime pension. Most people I've talked to who received a lump sum would, by now, have received more than that in pension. Another version could essentially amortize the already paid lump sum over "x" number of years, and a monthly pension payment would be reduced by that amount until it balances. But most people like the first one better.

Note that this is speculative on my part. I imagine exactly this issue will attract a fair bit of discussion in the coming year. But it really isn't rocket surgery.


----------



## Rifleman62

> But it really isn't rocket surgery.



But it will be for VAC.


----------



## Rifleman62

Just a reminder from two liberal media outlets:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/23/justin-trudeau-promises-lifetime-pensions-for-injured-veterans.html
*
Justin Trudeau promises lifetime pensions for injured veterans*

Liberal leader’s pledge, if elected on Oct. 19, is part of a comprehensive pitch to woo disgruntled ex-soldiers away from Conservative fold.

By: Murray Brewster The Canadian Press, Published on Sun Aug 23 2015

BELLEVILLE, ONT.—*Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are promising to restore a system of lifetime pensions for injured veterans, if elected on Oct. 19.

*
The pledge is part of a comprehensive pitch to woo disgruntled ex-soldiers, whom the Conservatives have long considered their natural constituency.

Trudeau will deliver the promise Monday at an event in a southern Ontario town that hosts CFB Trenton, the largest and busiest military air base. The proposals give advocates, including the veterans ombudsman, everything they’ve been demanding.

The treatment of ex-soldiers has been a political lightning rod for the Conservatives and the perceived mishandling of the files, along with nasty public exchanges, contributed to the demotion of Julian Fantino out of the veterans portfolio in January.

The switch from lifetime pensions to a series of lump sum payments under the new veterans charter, which was conceived under Paul Martin’s Liberals in 2005, is one of the biggest complaints among wounded soldiers.
It has been at the heart of a class-action lawsuit launched by Afghan veterans, who say the old Pension Act system was more generous to Second World War and Korean War soldiers than to those who served in recent years.
The Liberal platform plank, obtained by The Canadian Press, offers the wounded a choice of either lump sum or pensions-for-life. *They promise to reinstate the option during the current fiscal year.*

The proposal also offers to pump millions of dollars into further improving compensation and care.

The Liberals say they will invest $25 million to expand access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance, which is given to the most seriously wounded and has been the subject of criticism by the veterans ombudsman, who has said eligibility criteria was too strict.

Guy Parent found, in a 2014 study, that nearly half of the country’s most severely disabled ex-soldiers were not receiving the allowance intended to compensate them for their physical and mental wounds.

The Liberals also promise to invest $40 million to increase the Earnings Loss Benefit to 90 per cent of a soldier’s pre-release salary, and index it to the cost of living. Right now, the benefit is set at 75 per cent — something Parent has also complained about.

There is a pledge to invest $80 million per year to create a new Veterans Education Benefit that provides full support for the cost of up to four years of college, university, or technical education for veterans after completion of service.

Another $100 million per year would go toward expanded support for the families of veterans, including education, counselling, and training for families who are providing care and support for veterans. That might satisfy critics such as Jenny Migneault, who chased Fantino down a hall in Ottawa trying to get him to commit to improving caregiver services.

The Liberals are also promising to reopen nine regional veterans affairs offices closed by the Conservatives and to hire an additional 400 staff to process claims.

The Harper Conservatives have faced unrelenting criticism from the veterans community and responded earlier this year with a series of initiatives, including a family caregiver’s benefit and a one-time $70,000 lump sum payout to injured soldiers.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-liberal-veterans-pensions-1.3201506
*
Justin Trudeau promises lifelong pensions for injured veterans*

Trudeau to release 'fully costed platform' in coming weeks that will include $300M plan for veterans

CBC News Posted: Aug 24, 2015 11:29 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 24, 2015 7:03 PM ET

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau promised to "reinstate" lifelong pensions for Canada's injured veterans during a campaign announcement in Belleville, Ont. that pledged $300 million annually to expand and create military support programs if elected on Oct. 19.

Trudeau said that after "10 years of neglect" under the Conservative government, he would implement changes immediately, including a new fund to cover post-secondary education costs for veterans, two new veterans' care centres and more support for the families of veterans.

"For 10 years, Stephen Harper has been nickle-and-diming our veterans, lacking the respect and the support that Canadians have earned through service to country and that's something that we have to fix as a priority," Trudeau told supporters in the southern Ontario riding Bay of Quinte, which is home to CFB Trenton.

"This is about doing right by people who have offered everything in service of our country."

_*Trudeau said a "fully costed platform" would be released in coming weeks to show how the Liberal plan would be funded should he form government.*_

The plan includes:

$20 million to create two new veterans' care centres.
$100 million annually to expand support for families of veterans, including education and counseling.
$25 million to expand the Permanent Impairment Allowance for the most seriously wounded.
$40 million to increase the Earnings Loss Benefit from 75 per cent to 90 per cent of a soldier's pre-release salary.
Increase the veteran survivor's pension amount to 70 per cent from 50 per cent.
Double funding to the Last Post Fund for the burial of veterans.
Harper defends record

Asked about Trudeau's plan during his own campaign stop in Drummondville, Que., Monday morning, Harper defended the Conservative record with veterans under his leadership. He said his government has increased benefits for veterans by 35 per cent.

"Veterans are big supporters of our party and have been for a long time," he said in French. 

"Evidently, it's not a unanimous opinion, but I think veterans understand, really, the support the Conservative government has for them."

Retired air force officer Erin O'Toole took over as minister of Veteran Affairs from Julian Fantino in January amid criticism over the decision to close regional offices and what veterans described as a lack of mental health support. O'Toole has since made several announcements to increase support and benefits for veterans.

Retired general Andrew Leslie, who is running as the Liberal candidate in the Ottawa riding of Orléans, spoke ahead of Trudeau, accusing "Harper's spin machine" of spending "a fortune" to convince Canadians that his government supports veterans when it does not.

"The whole attitude of Mr. Trudeau is, 'Let's fix it,'" Leslie said. 

Trudeau also vowed to reopen the nine Veterans Affairs service offices closed under the Conservative government, and further promised to hire 400 new frontline service workers, including Veterans Affairs case managers.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said at a campaign event in Toronto Monday that his party will have its own detailed announcement about veterans during the campaign but also vowed to reopen the nine offices that were closed.

"We think that our veterans deserve to be recognized and respected 365 days a year — not just on November 11th," he said.

Liberal plan considers 'future generations'

Trudeau said that while 158 members of the Canadian Forces died during the mission in Afghanistan, 170 committed suicide since 2004 and that many more suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.

He promised to implement all of the Auditor General's recommendations on improving mental health service to veterans.

"Future generations of brave women and men should know that they will be looked after when they finish their service to Canada. There should never be any doubt in their minds," he said.

When asked about how he will convince Canadians he is ready to lead given the "lack of experience" he and some Liberal candidates have on the federal scene, Trudeau said he has demonstrated leadership through his ideas and his team.

He pointed specifically to two candidates at the announcement: Leslie and Harjit Sajjan, a former police officer and lieutenant-colonel running in Vancouver South.

"One of the things I learned from my father is, you gather around you extraordinary people to serve, to bring forward solutions, to be strong voices for their communities in Ottawa," he said.

"And, I have to say, sir, you're a fairly brave man to stand there and question the life experience of folks like Harjit Sajjan and general Andrew Leslie."


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Just a reminder from two liberal media outlets ...


... and the platform itself.

Let's see how many budgets it takes the Liberals, after the Tories didn't change much after ten budgets.


----------



## Teager

Well the first reading was yesterday I think so here are the amendments to the Bill in regard to what was annouced in the budget.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8168978


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> Well the first reading was yesterday I think so here are the amendments to the Bill in regard to what was annouced in the budget.
> 
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8168978


Good catch - here's where you can keep track of where it's at in the sausage machine:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=8166461


----------



## BinRat55

I read somewhere last week (and for the life of me I can't find it again) that the retroactive lump sum payments have to be made up PRIOR to 1 Apr 2017. I'm sure I read that. Did anyone else see that? I am aware that the bump to $360,000 doesn't take effect until FY 17 (i'll probably be dead before I see any retro payments!) but ??

Also, anyone hazard a guess on payments about to be paid out? Would one receive the fraction of the base amount of 310,000 today and a retro payment in a few years?


----------



## Occam

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I read somewhere last week (and for the life of me I can't find it again) that the retroactive lump sum payments have to be made up PRIOR to 1 Apr 2017. I'm sure I read that. Did anyone else see that? I am aware that the bump to $360,000 doesn't take effect until FY 17 (i'll probably be dead before I see any retro payments!) but ??
> 
> Also, anyone hazard a guess on payments about to be paid out? Would one receive the fraction of the base amount of 310,000 today and a retro payment in a few years?



Considering much of the legislation hinges on whether one is alive or dead on 1 April 2017, it's safe to say that the retro won't occur until after that date.

It should be business as usual until the coming into force date of the new legislation, at which point retro is sorted out for anyone it applies to.


----------



## BinRat55

Ahh yes - the ole "coming into force" date!

Thanks Occam!


----------

