# Veterans Review and Appeal Bd: pressure to reject claims, spying, junkets (MERGED)



## bison33

Good reading, and not like I need another reason to despise VAC.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/vets-board-member-says-privacy-raided-after-he-sided-with-veterans-139181419.html


----------



## jollyjacktar

It gives one the impression these past few years that anyone who is the veteran's friend soon finds himself under cowardly attack.  If only the rotten fruit could be pared from the tree that is VAC.  Some of these self serving people need a taste of their own medicine.


----------



## armyvern

Well, it certainly goes to show what the hell all us average folk have to put up with and what we are up against when VAC is willing to devour it's own like that!!

Time for a 100% overhaul from top to bottom of a VAC system and it's people that obviously values itself too highly while trodding on those it's supposed to be there for.

Their priorities are obviously NOT where they are supposed to be; dump 'em all and start from scratch.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, it certainly goes to show what the hell all us average folk have to put up with and what we are up against when VAC is willing to devour it's own like that!!
> 
> Time for a 100% overhaul from top to bottom of a VAC system and it's people that obviously values itself too highly while trodding on those it's supposed to be there for.
> 
> Their priorities are obviously NOT where they are supposed to be; dump 'em all and start from scratch.


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

Hey, I can dream, can't I?


----------



## dogger1936

As a person who has had 2 health assessments sent by Dr to VAC where someone signed for it...and now both are missing...this privacy stuff does not surprise me. Heaven knows who is looking at mine....


----------



## Wookilar

Agreed. This stuff fires up my paranoia like nothing else. I'm no (im)famous Vet advocate or anything lol but it always scares me when these privacy issues come up.

Like Vern said, if they are willing (and able) to treat one of their own like this...what are they willing to do to me?

Mind you, then we get into the discussion of whether the (Ret) WO was really "one of their own" or whether he was always seen as "one of us." I wonder if the retired Maj's on the Board get treated like this?

Wook

edit: Has anyone done an Access to Information request on their own file? I know it can be done, but the VAC website was a little light on the details (but my google-fu search skills are not very good).


----------



## Nemo888

VAC sees vets as the enemy. Seen.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Time for new rules.....





> A prominent, long-standing member of the country's Veterans Review and Appeal Board had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign meant to discredit him using his private medical information as ammunition, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> The behind-the-scenes fight involving Harold Leduc has been so bad and so vicious that the Canadian Human Rights Commission quietly ordered the veterans board to pay the decorated, former warrant officer $4,000, including legal costs, for harassment he'd suffered from other agency members.
> 
> Leduc, who spent 22 years in the military, claims he was a target for gossip, innuendo and intimidation because he often sided with veterans in his review decisions ....


The Canadian Press, 12 Feb 12



> They were called Santa Claus, often behind their backs.
> 
> Adjudicators at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board who sided too frequently with ex-soldiers got the dismissive moniker from some of their peers, according to a long-standing member who has broken his silence.
> 
> The slight was made possible by a subtle, but profound, change to the way the agency — now at the heart of another veterans' privacy scandal — began dissecting its decisions shortly after the Conservatives came to power.
> 
> The agency posts its overall favourability rating online, showing the percentage of times the independent board rules in favour of veterans who have appealed their benefit rulings by federal bureaucrats.
> 
> But in 2007, in addition to tracking favourable decisions by region, the board began measuring the number of times panel members were involved in decisions that came down on the side of former soldiers and RCMP members, according to PowerPoint presentations obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> Cases are heard by two-member review panels and appeals by three members. If one adjudicator rules in favour, the decision is a win for the veteran, regardless of what other members say.
> 
> The slicing and dicing of those statistics had far-reaching implications and is one of the tools board chairman John Larlee and his deputy used to lean on members perceived as overly-generous, says long-standing member Harold Leduc.
> 
> He has been embroiled in a long-running dispute with the board, including allegations of two privacy breaches.
> 
> "We sure felt the pressure. I know I felt it," Leduc said in an interview. "I'm not sure what board staff was saying behind my back, but I know with other members they'd call them Santa Claus because they're giving too much away."
> 
> He said board members were warned in 2008, prior to the arrival of John Larlee as the new chairman, that if their favourability rating for decisions was too high they would be called on the carpet ....


The Canadian Press, 13 Feb 12


----------



## armyvern

Wow.



> "We sure felt the pressure. I know I felt it," Leduc said in an interview. "I'm not sure what board staff was saying behind my back, but I know with other members they'd call them Santa Claus because they're giving too much away."
> 
> He said board members were warned in 2008, prior to the arrival of John Larlee as the new chairman, that if their favourability rating for decisions was too high they would be called on the carpet ....



The above confirms for me that there is a quota system (call it by any other name  :) occuring within VAC and, that at the end of the day, Vets don't matter; cash does.

Yep, an overhaul is *definitely* required.

Especially when one considers that we (Ie: vets) know that VAC has, despite what they'd admit to, some sort of process in place whereby the common SOP is to "deny" most submitted claims on their first go round. Knowing full well that the vast majority of those initially denied just give up rather than continue on the humiliating, degrading, hoop-jumping, adminstrative burden that they call their appeals process.

Thus, the above quoted bit of enlightenment, for me, only indicates to me that they are max 'quota_ing_' appeal claim files; those files where members actually dug-in and fought for themselves. But those appeal files are already drastically reduced by those huge volumes of initial-denials by VAC that never go to appeal.

While they are overhauling the whole stinking mess that is VAC, why don't they start from scratch and give veterans a fair shake? An impartial shake? By that, first thing to go needs to be the "you can appeal this rejection if any new evidence comes to light" because new evidence of NON-IMPARTIALITY by VAC in their approval/rejection of files has just been revealed for all to see.

Now, go ahead VAC. Based on that new and public evidence, you should be able to employ all your usual lot of summer-students in Charlottetown to go through each and every file you've ever rejected and actually give it a good, honest, impartial and fair going over and considertation that you _*should*_ have been doing all along. Exactly as the vets deserve; vets are not here to save you money at the expense of their health --- despite what the bureaucratic rule-makers and policy overlookers might like to think.


----------



## dogger1936

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> VAC sees vets as the enemy. Seen.



And yet it always surprises me vets never act like the enemy no matter how bad they are treated. 

At what point do vets stand up for themselves. Cause let's face it...no one else cares except us.


----------



## Words_Twice

Not exactly confidence inspiring, I am awaiting decisions on two separate claims with VAC. I hope it does not end up at the VRAB level. Harold Leduc is a real stand up guy, we was the Sigs platoon 2 i/c when I was in battalion back in the mid 80's.


----------



## schart28

Vets department and board struggled for years to contain privacy leaks

By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/vets-department-and-board-struggled-for-years-to-contain-privacy-leaks-139472873.html

OTTAWA - Veterans Affairs Canada and the independent board that reviews claims of ex-soldiers grappled with allegations of leaked personal information long before a privacy scandal blew up in public.

A series of leaked documents show the department and the agency tried — and ultimately failed — in the spring of 2009 to tighten up the system and clamp down on bureaucrats who'd been rifling through the files of veterans advocates and opponents.

A May 28, 2009 letter, signed by the deputy chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, noted that a working group from the agency and the department itself had been assembled to examine privacy issues.

"Security Services has recently released two communiques on this topic, and will continue to educate employees on a regular basis," wrote James MacPhee in a letter to follow board member Harold Leduc, whose medical file had become the source of gossip and innuendo around the review agency.

The letter noted that staff at the review board were to be given mandatory privacy training.

MacPhee assured the former warrant officer that his privacy invasion was taken seriously and that federal officials were looking at restricting access to the computer data base where the files were held.

Yet, the department was not fully galvanized to action for another 18 months until the scandal involving advocate Sean Bruyea blew up in public — prompting among other things a major audit of procedures and practises by the country's privacy watchdog.

Access to the data base was not tightened until the fall of 2010 as part of the Harper government's damage control exercise following revelations Bruyea's medical records were sown into a ministerial briefing note.

A spokeswoman for the review board, Danielle Gauthier, said the independent agency took steps a year before the department to safeguard information and also adopted many of the steps taken by Veterans Affairs in its clean up efforts.

"The Chairman has made privacy and the protection of personal information top priorities at the board," she wrote in an email response to questions posed by The Canadian Press.

"When a privacy breach occurs, we take immediate steps to address it, including corrective actions and disciplinary measures where appropriate."

Despite that, the board was the source of a 2011 release of a report on Harold Leduc that had not been vetted for private information.

A request to interview board chair John Larlee was denied last week.

Liberal attempts to get the privacy issue heard by a House of Commons committee were swept behind closed doors this week.

"This information just strengthens the needs to deal with this in public," said Liberal veterans critic Sean Casey.

"It's apparent that Harold Leduc is only the tip of the iceberg. A Parliamentary committee is supposed to delve into these things."

NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer said it's amazing the Harper government is asking Canadian to trust that it will protect online privacy in the controversial surveillance bill, yet it allows bureaucrats free rein with some of the country's most vulnerable citizens.

"It is simply not credible for the department to claim they've cleaned up their act," Stoffer said.

Officials at the federal Privacy Commissioner's Office confirm that, in addition to conducting a major audit of Veterans Affairs, it is pursuing 12 separate complaints from individuals about the department.

All of the protests were filed in 2010.

Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said in the House of Commons this week that he's open to strengthening privacy guarantees even further, but that the 10 point action plan implemented following the Bruyea case was having a positive effect.

Yet, Bruyea himself cast doubt on that Thursday, saying his battles with the department did not end with the 2010 settlement of his lawsuit against the federal government, which saw a $400,000 award for damages and legal costs.

He was initially able to track the leak of his information through Privacy Act requests. Most of the original 12,000 documents he received related to the 2005-06 timeframe.

His pursuit of more up-to-date records has hit a brick wall because the department has apparently stopped answering his requests. Before the gate came down he'd received an additional 18,000 pages — enough information for him to file further complaints last year with Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.

Four of those complaints have come back as well-founded, according to letters obtained by The Canadian Press.

Bruyea was apparently accused last week by the deputy minister of veterans affairs in a private meeting of having an axe to grind and being biased.

"I don't need to believe in conspiracies to see that (Veteran's Affairs) culture is really just a conspiracy of incompetence," he said.

Bruyea noted that the department has had a comprehensive policy on personal information since 1999 and all departments have been required to follow federal Treasury Board privacy guidelines since 1998.

That should have been enough to safeguard his medical files, as well as those belonging to Leduc and others, and promise to fix the system are merely window dressing, he said.

"Had (Veterans Affairs) followed either of these plans, none of any of these breaches would have happened," he said. "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. What we are talking about is ineptitude and a complete disregard for not just the law but the humanity of the victims."


----------



## schart28

Vets board member says privacy raided after he sides too often with veterans

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/vets-board-member-says-privacy-raided-after-he-sided-with-veterans-139181419.html

By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press








Harold Leduc gestures during an interview in Ottawa, Tuesday Feb.1, 2012. Leduc, a prominent member of the country's veterans review and appeal board had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign meant to discredit him and his decisions using his private medical information. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

OTTAWA - A prominent, long-standing member of the country's Veterans Review and Appeal Board had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign meant to discredit him using his private medical information as ammunition, The Canadian Press has learned.

The behind-the-scenes fight involving Harold Leduc has been so bad and so vicious that the Canadian Human Rights Commission quietly ordered the veterans board to pay the decorated, former warrant officer $4,000, including legal costs, for harassment he'd suffered from other agency members.

Leduc, who spent 22 years in the military, claims he was a target for gossip, innuendo and intimidation because he often sided with veterans in his review decisions.

It is the latest, and potentially the most wide-ranging, in a series of privacy breaches, which the Conservative government claimed was cleaned up at the department that oversees the care of ex-soldiers and RCMP.

In late 2010 following the privacy scandal involving advocate Sean Bruyea, the government said it instituted tighter controls over the personal information of veterans and who had access to files.

Yet, in the spring of 2011, an investigation report, which included Leduc's personal information and examined the toxic in-fighting at the independent agency, was released un-censored following an access to information request.

"I am writing to notify you of a privacy breach that resulted in the improper disclosure of personal information," said a July 6, 2011 letter to Leduc from the access co-ordinator of the veterans board, who apologized and described the incident as a clerical error.

Two years previously, the deputy chair of the board acknowledged in another letter, that Leduc had been the victim of a more serious breach, where over 40 officials accessed his file that included medical information. Some of the officials were from veterans affairs, others included those who oversaw the review and appeal board.

"I was devastated because it was a huge breach of trust that they can't go back on," Leduc said in an interview with The Canadian Press. "I'm very embarrassed about my service-related disabilities and I don't think that's anybody's business, but mine. I was just shocked and devastated."

Board chairman John Larlee declined a request for an interview, but spokeswomen for both the agency and the veterans affairs minister released statements in response to a series of questions posed by The Canadian Press.

Both Danielle Gauthier and Codi Taylor said safeguarding privacy has been of the utmost concern.

"When a privacy breach occurs, we take immediate steps to address it, including corrective actions and disciplinary measures where appropriate," Gauthier wrote in an email Friday.

Neither of them would address Leduc's circumstance, citing privacy concerns. They declined to explain how his privacy could have been violated twice — or what measures were taken in response.

"Minister Steven Blaney believes that any violation of our Veterans privacy is totally unacceptable," Taylor wrote in an email.

"Our government took action over a year ago to ensure disciplinary measures for those who violate the law. Our government wants to ensure that the privacy of all veterans remains protected which is why Minister Blaney instructed departmental officials to look at how the Privacy Action Plan could be updated."

Taylor would not explain what new measures might be introduced - or when.

The Canadian Press has obtained a series of documents, emails and findings, which stretch back almost four years and paint a picture of a 24-member board that has become a viper's nest of intrigue, division, and petty vendettas.

The board is the place veterans can turn to if they're unhappy with the decisions of department bureaucrats. Two member review panels and three member appeal panels adjudicate their grievances.

If one member says "yes," the decision must go in favour of the veteran, regardless of how other members feel.

"I was told — I think as far back as January 2007 — directly by one of my colleagues, who said: 'A bunch of us are keeping an eye on you because we've been told you have certain conditions and so, we think you are biased'," Leduc said.

He was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder following over two decades of service in the military. And it was the conversations with other board members that prompted him to begin asking questions of officials about his privacy.

The gossip escalated to outright harassment after the Conservative government re-appointed him to a five-year term in 2007, said Leduc, who has also been awarded a veterans ombudsman commendation.

His fear that his medical reports had been spread around was realized in early 2009, but unlike Bruyea, the privacy commissioner was unable to investigate.

He said Jennifer Stoddard told him that Veterans Affairs Canada, or the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic arm of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office, would have to carry out the probe.

Leduc asked for a judicial investigation under the veterans review board legislation, but the chair, John Larlee, chose instead to hire an outside investigator to conduct "a workplace assessment," according to a Dec. 7, 2009 letter.

"This is a genuine attempt for an objective, independent 3rd party to assess VRAB as a workplace and make the Board a better more productive place to work for everyone," Larlee wrote.

But the situation dissolved into tit-for-tat harassment claims. At least two other board members filed against Leduc, who among other things was also being pressured to submit to a Health Canada psychological assessment.

He said the harassment was aimed at getting him to quit.

Philip Chodos, who was hired to do the assessment, took it upon himself to attempt to mediate among the warring parties, according to a series of emails.

What remains unclear was whether that was within his mandate. He eventually gave up on the mediation attempt and filed his investigation report with the board.

Leduc was told the document focused on him, but he could not see it. It was suggested he apply for a copy under access to information laws.

Before he got the chance last spring, the unedited copy was released to someone else, in violation of the Privacy Act. Federal officials won't say who obtained the document.

A veterans affairs official, speaking on background, claimed that staff had been disciplined in relation to the un-authorized release. But neither Gauthier, nor Taylor would confirm that.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission became involved in the summer of 2010 with a mediation of its own. It sided with Leduc and ordered the board to compensate him and cease harassment.

The document trail shows senior bureaucrats in PCO and in the veterans minister's office promised to try and bridge the divide, but to no avail.

"I'm sorry to learn about this situation and how it has affected you," former veteran affairs minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn wrote on July 19, 2010, referring to Leduc's first privacy breach.

"I note that the management of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board has taken this matter seriously and has conducted an investigation, apologized to you and put in place measures to prevent similar situations in the future."

When the second privacy breach occurred, Harper's office took notice.

"We are very troubled to review the concerns you outlined," wrote Salphie Stephanian, an assistant to the prime minister, in an Aug. 12, 2011 email. "Our government regards the protection of personal information as a priority. We have been in contact with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Steven Blaney. His office is aware of the situation, and you can be assured that an appropriate response is forthcoming."

Yet, when asked what action was taken, Taylor pointed out that the board was meant to be an "arms-length, quasi-judicial body."

Senior government officials say Leduc was offered further mediation last fall, but he declined.

In a letter to Harper, Leduc pleaded for a judicial investigation of the board, saying he didn't want to take legal action or go to the media.

He said later in an interview last week that he kept his silence for years because he believed going public would only harm veterans.

But with continued in-fighting and no action by government, he said he had no choice but to speak out.

"The matter needs to be investigated ASAP if the government and people of Canada truly care about veterans as they've stated in the law," he said.


----------



## schart28

Advocates want privacy-leaking veterans board disbanded and replaced

http://www.theusatimes.com/story/news/advocates-want-privacy-leaking-veterans-board-disbanded






OTTAWA - A leading veterans organization says the agency at the centre of the latest privacy scandal involving ex-soldiers should be disbanded.

Canadian Veterans Advocacy is responding to the case of former warrant officer Harold Leduc, who claims his personal medical information and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress became fodder for gossip and innuendo around the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Mike Blais, the executive director of the advocacy group, says the idea that Leduc was targeted because he often sided with veterans in review decisions brings into question the integrity of the entire board.

He says the board should be dismissed at once.

Both the Liberals and NDP say the Harper government should heed Leduc's advice and call a judicial inquiry into the review board, which has long been a source of complaints from the veterans community.

New Democrat veterans critic Peter Stoffer says the Conservatives have promised to either overhaul or abolish the board and it's about time they lived up to their pledge.


----------



## schart28

VRAB Mr Harold Leduc - victim of alleged smear campaign - Privacy Breaches - on CBC Radio As It Happens TONIGHT at 6h30PM
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/


----------



## The Bread Guy

Ok, we get it, you don't need separate threads for related stories.

Merge coming shortly.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## The Bread Guy

More on how the Board treats some applicants:


> They once referred to her as "the little woman" and suggested the post traumatic stress she'd suffered as a peacekeeper in the Bosnia war meant she couldn't handle the rigours of service.
> 
> "It was so patronizing, it was unreal," Rhoni Speed of Ottawa said of her 2008 appearance before a panel of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the independent agency where ex-soldiers turn to fight for benefits.
> 
> The word "respect" repeatedly bounced off the walls in the House of Commons on Monday as MPs debated an opposition motion to halt possible cuts at Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> But Speed said there's not much respect when the doors of the hearing room are closed.
> 
> She related her 1990s experience as a reservist intelligence photographer in the war-torn Medak region, where Canadian troops fought a violent battle with Croatian forces and uncovered a massacre of Serbian civilians. There was little appreciation, however, from the two civilians who sat in judgment of her claim.
> 
> "The whole feeling throughout was I was a little woman and I couldn't deal with life," said Speed, who finally was granted a disability benefit in 2010 after several appeals. "It was easier in Bosnia than it was here."
> 
> It wasn't the seemingly endless bureaucratic process that got her down as much as it was the snide, often disrespectful comments that rained down from a board that was supposed to provide an impartial but sympathetic hearing ....


The Canadian Press, 6 Mar 12


----------



## Wookilar

I have heard similar stories from more than a few people. I have yet to end up in front of the VRAB (2 in the works lol), but i have been working with the BPA for some time now and I am impressed with them (for the most part).

I think I like the BPA because it is all based on what the lawyer says, it's fairly white/black on whether or not we have enough to make a case. I may not agree with it necessarily, but at least I can understand it.

The behaviour of _some_ of the people on the VRAB...don't understand so much.

Wook


----------



## Rifleman62

Sorry to rain on your parade. 

BPA is giving you their opinion, which does not mean VRAB will agree no matter how logical or the amount of factual evidence you have.


----------



## Wookilar

Oh understood.

I have more than enough experience with the entire VAC system to know that facts only get in their way  ;D

Wook


----------



## Rifleman62

I love it when an Adjudication clerk, using a Merck Medical Reference book, overturns what a licensed medical professional reports.


----------



## Kat Stevens

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> And yet it always surprises me vets never act like the enemy no matter how bad they are treated.
> 
> At what point do vets stand up for themselves. Cause let's face it...no one else cares except us.



How do we do that?  We don't count.  The organization that was supposed to advocate for us, the RCL,  has become nothing but a place for people with little to no connection to us to play crib and darts, and hold Friday meat draws.  Individual veterans' "cries in the wild" will never be heard as far away as Ottawa.


----------



## dogger1936

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> How do we do that?  We don't count.  The organization that was supposed to advocate for us, the RCL,  has become nothing but a place for people with little to no connection to us to play crib and darts, and hold Friday meat draws.  Individual veterans' "cries in the wild" will never be heard as far away as Ottawa.



I haven't seen vet's handcuffing themselves onto the VAC offices doors yet. These advocacy groups out there have not been working. A few loud people outside Parliament one or two days a year are easy to ignore. If you want to get attention to a cause think like media. A few vets with signs around their neck " I don't get a pension" "I went to Afghanistan and all I got was this stupid limp" etc reach headlines and 6 O'clock news.

Believe it or not the majority of Canadian folks support the veterans. However they are tricked into believing there is excellent support for our injured.

And that's just one option. Research, ensure your well spoken, and protest.


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... to the earlier stories re:  pressure to not approve - here's a link to a written response released this week to a question in the House of Commons (via Google Documents) showing, among other things, a breakdown of number of times individual members of the Board voted for and against an appeal, and totals (2006-2011) of favourable & unfavourable review and appeal decisions.


----------



## Wookilar

Statistically speaking, if all things had stayed the same, then why the change in ratio in FY's 10-11 and 11-12?

For all previous years, Favourable vs. Un sat anywhere from 2:1 to 3:1 (inexact, but close).

To paraphrase the famous misquote from Nixon: Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Wook


----------



## Rifleman62

Wook, to clarify 





> To paraphrase the famous misquote from Nixon: Lies, damn lies and statistics.



It is not known who said it, but it was not Nixon.The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death.


----------



## Wookilar

Darn it, missed my misquoted politician by a century  :-[ That's what happens when the ADHD kicks in lol

Thank you for improving my slack and idle mind  ;D 

Wook


----------



## dogger1936

Before getting my lump sum payout recently Me and my wife sat down and went through their assessment form found online.

I had a percentage that was 3% lower than DVA decided.

While I disagree that I am only X% disabled and fall under the NVC which I despise; I have found their decision fair based on the current failed system that is set up (which the board can't change of course).

I'm unhappy with VAC and our government's treatment of soldiers but I am pleased with what I see as a fair decision based on the information provided to them.


----------



## Rifleman62

I would have thought someone would have posted this yesterday. 

I wrote to this guy ( 13 Aug 09) after he was appointed, requesting that he look at my case. This was before I found out about the Application for Reconsideration. In the VAC "Salute" article on his appointment Larlee stated:



> “I realize then that my job will be to look at the board’s program with fresh eyes, to make sure it is living up to its mandate.”



The reply I got, remarkably dated 27 Aug 09, Larlee stated:



> I am not at liberty to become involved in any discussion of your case once a decision is rendered.



Step up to the pig trough John Larlee. Oh sorry, you are already there!

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120515/veterans-affairs-lecture-junkets-120515/

*Veterans demand explanation for U.K. junkets*

The Canadian Press - Tuesday May. 15, 2012 

OTTAWA — Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney has ordered a ban on international travel for members of an arm's-length agency that reviews the claims of veterans.

The order late Tuesday follows growing controversy over expense claims from John Larlee, chairman of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board since 2009.

The Canadian Press reported this week that Larlee took two taxpayer-funded trips to attend lectures in Britain, where his wife was also a participant.

A group representing Canada's veterans, the Canadian Veterans Advocacy, says the trips are suspect and wants Larlee called to account before a House of Commons committee.

New Democrats went further on Tuesday and demanded he be fired.

The minister turned aside those demands, saying the board is an arm's-length agency that is accountable for its own actions.

"We will stand by the tribunal and expect all board members to be responsible and show respect for taxpayer dollars at all times," he told the Commons.

"I am confident this board will keep on providing good services for our veterans."

Canada veteran's ombudsman tore a strip off the agency last week, saying it failed more often than not to give former soldiers the benefit of the doubt as they appealed benefits claims and didn't give reasons for denying claims.

NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer reminded Blaney that he signed off for the chairman's last trip.

A spokeswoman for the minister, Codi Taylor, confirmed the travel ban Tuesday, but could not say whether any other action was pending.

Larlee attended the Cambridge Lecture series in 2007 at his own expense. But after he was appointed chairman, he billed the federal government for his visits in 2009 and 2011, at a total cost of $7,285.97.

"That kind of money would help a lot of disabled veterans," Stoffer said. "How does this minister allow that kind of abuse?"

Department sources say Blaney was unaware that Larlee's wife was attending the Cambridge lecture series when he approved the travel request.

The series, attended by the elite of Canadian and British political and legal communities, focuses on high-level international policy, with topics such as Afghanistan and the impact of the market collapse. Larlee's wife, Justice Margaret Larlee of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, took part in the 2007, 2009 and 2011 events.

The chairman refused an interview request, but a spokeswoman for the board said the trips received the necessary approvals and were paid for in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.

Danielle Gauthier said the conferences helped Larlee to guide the board through tribunal administration and fell within the category of professional development. Board records show Larlee attended five other training conferences in Canada -- at a total cost of $6,757.67 -- since he was appointed in 2009.

Under questioning in the Commons, Blaney said he expects the board to "rigorously apply its standards and it spend taxpayers' money carefully."

Veterans groups were dismayed.

"This is very disappointing on more than one level," said Mike Blais, of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.

"On one hand, Veterans Affairs Canada is sustaining severe cuts resulting in office closures and the dismissal of hundreds of employees, many who are front-line staff, yet on the other, we have the (review board), excluded from the budgetary cuts, squandering thousands of dollars (and) sending Mr. Larlee abroad to lectures."

In light of the conference agendas, he said the trips "surely cannot be justified."

The chairman of the review and appeal board should be fired if he can't provide a suitable explanation for attending the lectures at stately Cambridge University, north of London, Blais said.

The Conservative government promised to either reform or abolish the board and it's time to do one or the other, he added.

That pledge was made during the 2005 election campaign and the Stoffer reminded the government about it only to have the minister describe the notion an "irresponsible NDP suggestion."


----------



## dogger1936

Thank you Mr. Blaise and Canadian Veterans Advocacy. the veterans true voice in all this.

This government (much like the last) does not care about vet's. They will put vimy on a 20 dollar bill and call that helping vets. While young injured soldiers don't even get a pension.

I thought Harper was going to fix the mess that all parties agreed upon (and the legion). Guess I was 100% wrong.


----------



## OldSolduer

Do these people not learn from the mistakes of others? It makes me wonder if you have to be slightly "slow" to get a high ranking position in government.

MND and the CDS were very publicly spanked for using aircraft that are meant to be used.  And this bureaucrat should be as well.

 :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy

A couple of things to add:

1)  





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> MND and the CDS were very publicly spanked for using aircraft that are meant to be used.  And this bureaucrat government appointee should be as well.


FTFY

2)  A bit more of the rest of the picture from a story earlier this week:





> The chairman of an embattled veterans review board billed taxpayers on two occasions to attend high-brow lectures in Britain where his wife was a participant.
> 
> John Larlee has regularly attended the Cambridge Lecture series, but went on the federal government's dime in 2009 and 2011.
> 
> The prominent events at Queen's College at Cambridge University north of London, attract movers and shakers in the British and Canadian political and legal communities.
> 
> Set amid the neatly manicured lawns, waterways and stone ramparts of the centuries-old university, the lectures have featured the likes of former prime minister Paul Martin and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada.
> 
> Larlee's bills for both trips, listed as professional development in the expense records of the Veterans Review and Appeal board, totalled $7,285.97, including flights, accommodations and meals.
> 
> His wife, Justice Margaret Larlee of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, has been a fixture at the events.
> 
> She was moderator of a panel on ending rape in both war and politics at the 2009 conference and led a discussion in 2011 on the role of Israel's supreme court in the fight against terrorism.
> 
> Justice Larlee was also featured at the 2007 lectures, discussing commissions of inquiry and whether they are worth the money. Her husband accompanied her that year as well, but paid for the trip out of his pocket, according to a veterans board spokeswoman.
> 
> The chairman refused an interview request, but Danielle Gauthier, who speaks for the independent agency, says the trips were justified.
> 
> "His daily work involves providing leadership to a board of independent adjudicators who make decisions based on evidence and according to the legislation that governs disability benefits for veterans," Gauthier said in an email statement to The Canadian Press.
> 
> "The lectures provide valuable insight into the global and common challenges of adjudicating from the perspective of leading lawyers, academics and judges from Canada and around the world."
> 
> Some topics discussed during Larlee's taxpayer-funded trips included nation-building in Afghanistan, Asia after the (financial) crash, Canada's response to terrorism, lectures on the rule of law, sovereignty and the responsibility to protect, the justice system in Tanzania and the unwritten principles of the constitution and minorities.
> 
> Board records show Larlee has attended five other conferences in Canada — at a total cost of 6,757.67 — since he was appointed in 2009. These included a Canadian Bar Association meeting in 2009.
> 
> Gauthier said the Cambridge conference expenses were paid by the veterans board in accordance with federal Treasury Board guidelines, which require justification for international travel.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney signed off on the 2011 trip, as his predecessor Jean-Pierre Blackburn did for the 2009 conference, officials said.
> 
> "We absolutely did not know his wife was a participant," added one senior official, who spoke on the condition of not being named.
> 
> Board officials, also speaking on background, emphasized that Justice Larlee's expenses were not covered by the agency and they declined to talk about how they were paid ....


----------



## dogger1936

14043.64 for eating and travelling about.

That's about what you get from veterans affairs for losing a hand!!

Where's our bill or rights you were talking about Harper? Can we please have a pension back?


----------



## Wookilar

Only a couple hundred off of 5%, their favorite number for injuries it seems.

That's what I got for destroying my ankle and walking with a swagger for the rest of my life (and wearing out my left boot faster lol).

Curious thing, just tried to get new boots through the system. Won't go for it, the Mk IV's have an impact absorbing sole so that's all I need according to the Dr.

VAC won't cover new boots, or even send me to see their Dr for an exam, because I am still serving, even though I think I have a pretty solid argument that fancy boots are a requirement for my job. Their system will not even allow them to enter a claim with my name on it because I am still serving.

$14K would sure buy a lot of boots.


----------



## OldSolduer

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> 14043.64 for eating and travelling about.
> 
> That's about what you get from veterans affairs for losing a hand!!
> 
> Where's our bill or rights you were talking about Harper? Can we please have a pension back?



Or tinnitus.


----------



## 57Chevy

quote from article:
"Veterans groups were dismayed."

Were ?
You must mean,"ARE DISMAYED !!!!"


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

To play devils advocate I blew more than that in a single TD trip.  (not usually an advocate for the civvy side of the house) Why is it I wonder we only bitch when a civvy gets a beneift.  Yes veterans affairs screwed us all with the lump sum vice pension routine (although fiscally a great idea) because someone looked into their crystal ball and said holy christ theres a real war out there. (not justification in my mind) But really 14 grand for 6 td trips 5 of which were in Canada is a drop in the bucket.  His wife who is a judge is a panel moderator for one of the panels in the whole seminar, big deal really folks big deal.  Lets cease funding to the communist broadcasting company (CBC) before we start to criticize the guy.

Other comments have been made about the minister and CDS getting spanked for personal use of government aircraft (I call it challenger math) was really not fought anywhere near hard enough by our elected officials.  I hope to god the CDS was smart enough to pay back the assessed 1300 and change for his flight to rejoin his family (after being recalled for duty reasons - ramp ceremony) and then claim the cost of his cancelled flight to st martens in the realm of 2300 bucks. Just sayin


----------



## aesop081

Not_So_Arty_Newbie said:
			
		

> 14 grand for 6 td trips 5 of which were in Canada is a drop in the bucket.



14k here, 14k there......pretty soon, we're talking real money.

I mean, if we want to play devil's advocate and all.


----------



## armyvern

My issue with it all has SFA to do with the cost. It has to do with the principal. Of course the boss signed off and the claim was reimbursed IAW Treasury Board guidelines ... someone in VAC drafted it up as a "Professional Development" opportunity. PD is allowable and understandable.

However, these trips? PD? How is that? I don't see a single thing on the agenda related to Treatment, Care, Management or Administrating of Injured and Ill Service Members. IE: JOB related. Someone, somewhere, snowballed the Boss who was signing off by playing with wording etc to make this _seem_ to be work-related PD for him (while conveniently neglecting to mention 9erDomestic was accompanying and doing the actual working/PD).

I see a bunch of unrelated and irrelevent-to-his-duties _stuff_. That's not PD; that's a taxpayer paid vacation to accompany your wife to HER work-related seminars. I do hope that the Province of New Brunswick paid HER costs as it certainly falls within the realm of PD related to her particular position.

Him, not even close.


----------



## Wookilar

Have to agree with Vern. The official reasons given to justify the trips to GB are hogwash. These conferences have nothing to do with the administration of anything.

I see just about all TD that goes through my unit, some is more useful than other to be sure. These however, are stretching it to the absurd. They are clearly trips taken to spend time with his wife.

I'm sure the conference is extremely interesting....to a judge, lawyer or lawmaker dealing in issues that often cross territorial lines. If he can dig up something that says some of the lectures deals with: legalities of on-job injuries and recovery costs; administration of health/insurance plans; changing services to fit drastically changing demographics in your client base; then maybe I'd buy it.

I'd love to sit in on some of these lectures, and a lot of others I see messages floating around about, but they have nothing to do with my job, my future jobs or really my professional development.

Do people at this level have PRR's and are these seminars on it as requested PD?


----------



## The Bread Guy

*Caveat:*  Private Member's Bills have a very slim chance of passing unless the ruling party is also willing to let them pass.





> New Democrats have introduced a private member’s bill to scrap an oft-maligned board where ex-soldiers can appeal the denial of benefits by the federal government. MP Peter Stoffer, the party’s veterans critic, says the review agency is the No. 1 problem facing individual veterans – and is seen as a place where they have to plead for what is rightfully theirs.
> 
> “The problem that many, many veterans face is when they appear before this politically appointed, non-accountable board is that they feel like they’re begging for something,” Mr. Stoffer said Wednesday.
> 
> “They feel they’re coming cap in hand.”
> 
> The Veterans Review and Appeal Board has been at the centre of complaints – even from one of its own members – that it disrespects and sometimes belittles veterans who appear before it ....


The Canadian Press, 3 Oct 12

From the House of Commons yesterday:


> *Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP)  *moved for leave to introduce Bill C-447, An Act respecting the repeal and replacement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.
> 
> He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their unanimous consent to introduce the legislation.
> 
> Basically, this is a one-page bill that is, quite simply, for our veterans, military and RCMP in this country. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members who want to ensure that our veterans get the benefits they require in a quick and expedient manner to ensure they can get on with their lives after service to their country.
> 
> The bill basically says that the Government of Canada must, in consultation with Canadian veterans and organizations, develop new legislation to repeal and replace the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act in order to establish a new and simplified regime that incorporates a medical, evidence-based, peer review process for decision-making regarding veterans' entitlements under relevant federal statutes, and may introduce that legislation in the House of Commons within three days of when this act comes into force.
> 
> Once again I thank all members of the House for the opportunity to introduce this legislation.
> 
> (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)



More information on the bill itself (even more'll be there once the text of the bill itself is posted):


> C-447 An Act respecting the repeal and replacement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act
> 
> Short Title
> Veterans Review and Appeal Board Replacement Act ....


----------



## 57Chevy

The most important and simple enough part of the Bill.
Quote from article
"establish a new and simplified regime that incorporates a medical, evidence-based, peer review process for decision-making regarding veterans' entitlements".

I see this as a step in the right direction and agree 100%.

And the important part of the article: 

Stoffer says, "His private member's bill has the support of veterans groups."

which makes sense.  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

The bill may have support of the veterans groups, but if it does not have the support of the government , it will die.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The bill may have support of the veterans groups, but if it does not have the support of the government , it will die.


And, I'm sure they'll let this one die too.  They don't give me the warm and fuzzys with regard to Veterans and their needs if it comes to money.


----------



## PuckChaser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They don't give me the warm and fuzzys with regard to Veterans and their needs if it comes to money.



Nobody is getting a warm and fuzzy for money right now, but this government's support has been subpar. Better than decades past but still well-below the mark. I still don't trust the NDP or Liberals not to gut the CF if they get into power, their support for veterans is only vote-deep.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Agreed.  No matter the party they'll all be wanting their peace dividend as in times past.  They only love us so much as they must and when we're of use to their political ends.  Otherwise we're like that sexual conquest you don't call the next morning or ever unless you're in a tight spot for some fun.

I have been disappointed by both the Liberals and Conservatives, however, the disappointment has always cut deeper with the Cons as frankly I expect better treatment from them.  The Liberals have not been our patrons since the 40's, 50's in my opinion.


----------



## blackberet17

57Chevy said:
			
		

> "establish a new and simplified regime that incorporates a medical, evidence-based, peer review process for decision-making regarding veterans' entitlements"



Quoting a quote. Easier that way  

What MP Stoffer has forgotten to note, even with his 15+ years of experience as Veterans Affairs critic, is this:

1) A number of the Disability Adjudicators have medical experience, many with a nursing background (they're the ones signing the letters);
2) When in doubt, they consult one of over a dozen doctors on staff at VAC;
3) It is evidence-based! The entire client's file is reviewed, IOT determine if the claimed disability is related to service factors. If the file isn't clear (i.e. no MIR reports, no CF 98, no credible medical opinion linking the disability to service or service factors), the claim will be turned down.

Oh, and by the way. His bill would close down VRAB, period. There is no actual intent of replacing it. Its "$11-million annual budget could be plowed back into benefits for ex-soldiers" (Vancouver Sun). Which means a CF member or veteran's ONLY opportunity to provide ORAL TESTIMONY regarding his/her application and his/her disability -- would be gone. The file, all the records and medical opinions are only part of the story. Sometimes it is YOUR testimony which can sway the Board in its decision.


----------



## Wookilar

Any group of individuals that regard a psychologists testimony as sub-standard solely on the fact that he is "not a medical doctor" deserve to be disbanded.

This argument is similar to the Indian Act. Everyone knows it's broken, but everyone is afraid to get rid of it because there is nothing to replace it with. So how about we replace it?

So here's an idea (Army style): Instead of disbanding it altogether, how about we design something that actually works. Why not design an actual arms-length review board that does not answer to VAC for their paychecks. No more complaining about the current situation and organization, how about someone actually fixes it instead of just threatening to take it all away?

And don't even get me started on the adjudicators. SOME have medical knowledge, not all, not even most. That is very clear when they make very basic errors wrt the appropriate table of disabilities to use.

Not that I don't like any of them or anything  ;D The workers at the coal face here in Gagetown are simply awesome. Beyond their little cubicle haven, my trust quickly dwindles.

And seeing as how I will soon have a great deal of time on my hands, they can hire me as a contractor to sort it out  ;D

Wook


----------



## blackberet17

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Any group of individuals that regard a psychologists testimony as sub-standard solely on the fact that he is "not a medical doctor" deserve to be disbanded.



That's being specific. A psychologist's report would be acceptable if it relates to a psychiatric condition. Medical doctor point is irrelevant unless we're talking about a medical (physical) condition. Don't blend the two. And there are still criteria for the opinion to meet. Does the psychologist outline how they arrived at their diagnosis? Is it in line with the DSM-IV?

It's the same for a physical medical condition. A family doctor's opinion, while helpful, isn't going to carry as much weight as one from an orthopaedic surgeon. Would you trust your family doctor when he says you need open heart surgery over that of a cardiologist who says you don't? Drastic example, I know, but still. And even then, the opinion should be based on sound medical knowledge, experience, tests, and research, as well as accepted medical basis. Any doctor can say this is related to that, but if it goes against what 50 doctors would say... 



			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> So here's an idea (Army style): Instead of disbanding it altogether, how about we design something that actually works. Why not design an actual arms-length review board that does not answer to VAC for their paychecks. No more complaining about the current situation and organization, how about someone actually fixes it instead of just threatening to take it all away?



VRAB is arms-length. It doesn't report to anyone else in VAC, except the Minister of Veterans Affairs. If I understand correctly, it functions much as the Immigration Review Board, which reports to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.



			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> And don't even get me started on the adjudicators. SOME have medical knowledge, not all, not even most. That is very clear when they make very basic errors wrt the appropriate table of disabilities to use.



Totally agree. But even the Table of Disabilities is an imperfect system. And not all medical conditions fall into little columns and rows of criteria...



			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> And seeing as how I will soon have a great deal of time on my hands, they can hire me as a contractor to sort it out  ;D



Send me your CV  ;D


----------



## maniac

It is clear on how the process is suppose to work and seems to play out in explanations in every thread.  The one's you hear about on this site is rarely the one's that were successful.  I have seen my far share of eye popping decisions from all levels of the so called "informed" decision making process by both VAC and VRAB.  What we should all remember is that we are a slave to the system,  it is what it is and that is all we have.  Unless the private members bill is passed (unlikely as most don't even get to 2nd reading) or the incumbent government makes changes it will be status quo.   We should be well advised that none of that will take place anytime soon.

To make your best challenge to the appeal process is to understand the "test" which is a legal argument.  I recommend that if you get an unfavourable decision, the first thing you should do is an ATI on VAC for everything they have on your case,  that provides you with full disclosure on evidence. You now know what they used to come to a decision.  Moving forward, is to get the evidence in support of your claim (argument),  did they have the specialist report?  are all witness statements/CF98's there?  Don't call BPA first,  do your homework because they only have what was provided for the record.  You can only provide new evidence at the appeal you're invited to,  not the one in Charlottetown.  Remember, You only have one shot to provide new evidence, don't miss your opportunity.

When you go to the oral appeal where you can present new evidence be prepared to make your argument.  Assume you are in the room alone because there's plenty to say about our representation by the PBA which is another thread altogether (good thing it's free).  In conclusion,  don't assume by calling the PBA or service officers of the RCL, that all the leg work necessary to win your argument is being done by them.  You can get the necessary ATI application documents from Treasury Board website, this will be time consuming but very beneficial.


----------



## Wookilar

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> That's being specific. A psychologist's report would be acceptable if it relates to a psychiatric condition. Medical doctor point is irrelevant unless we're talking about a medical (physical) condition. Don't blend the two. And there are still criteria for the opinion to meet. Does the psychologist outline how they arrived at their diagnosis? Is it in line with the DSM-IV?



I agree...however that is a direct quote from the decision they rendered for my PTSD claim. The MO's word (who I have seen maybe twice in the last year) was worth more than the psycologists' because he (my psychologist of 2 years) was not a medical Dr.

Like I said somewhere else, errors in fact and law. Pretty basic errors.


----------



## blackberet17

maniac said:
			
		

> To make your best challenge to the appeal process is to understand the "test" which is a legal argument.  I recommend that if you get an unfavourable decision, the first thing you should do is an ATI on VAC for everything they have on your case,  that provides you with full disclosure on evidence. You now know what they used to come to a decision.  Moving forward, is to get the evidence in support of your claim (argument),  did they have the specialist report?  are all witness statements/CF98's there?  Don't call BPA first,  do your homework because they only have what was provided for the record.  You can only provide new evidence at the appeal you're invited to,  not the one in Charlottetown.  Remember, You only have one shot to provide new evidence, don't miss your opportunity.
> 
> When you go to the oral appeal where you can present new evidence be prepared to make your argument.  Assume you are in the room alone because there's plenty to say about our representation by the PBA which is another thread altogether (good thing it's free).  In conclusion,  don't assume by calling the PBA or service officers of the RCL, that all the leg work necessary to win your argument is being done by them.  You can get the necessary ATI application documents from Treasury Board website, this will be time consuming but very beneficial.



I'm not going to discount a single thing maniac says here, all good stuff. I don't know if ATI-ing is necessary, I've never done it, and not my area of expertise. You can request your file, it's all yours anyway. The Statement of Case used by the VRAB and BPA in deciding your case is also available to you. It's a copy of everything both sides used in presenting and deciding on your case. If you think something is missing, say so, tell your lawyer or tell the members at the hearing. The case can then be adjourned until the missing documents are provided.

One thing too, which best applies to those still-serving, sorry. Keep a copy of EVERYTHING, CF 98s, witness statements, even the MIR and specialist reports. It's paper. It gets lost.


----------



## blackberet17

Wookilar said:
			
		

> I agree...however that is a direct quote from the decision they rendered for my PTSD claim. The MO's word (who I have seen maybe twice in the last year) was worth more than the psycologists' because he (my psychologist of 2 years) was not a medical Dr.
> 
> Like I said somewhere else, errors in fact and law. Pretty basic errors.



Egads, Wook. This is one of those times I look at the work I do, and some of the people I work with and for, and seriously do this :facepalm: over and over and over. I stopped using the concrete structural pillers for that. People complained...the building shook...


----------



## Wookilar

lol absolutely. You should have seen my psychologists face when I showed him the report  ;D. The kicker is he has submitted many reports to VAC and the VRAB before as he has been seeing vet's as clients for almost 20 years now. Never had a problem before.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bump with some news - some new members on the board:


> ....
> Ms. Denise Dietrich, a nurse with more than 35 years of health care experience, has also worked as a vocational and medical rehabilitation consultant. She possesses extensive experience as a decision maker on regulatory bodies, including the College of Nurses of Ontario, and she holds a Bachelor's Degree in Sociology from the University of Waterloo, as well as a Master's Degree in Health Studies from Athabasca University. A Practical Nursing graduate, she also holds a Diploma in Addiction Studies from McMaster University.
> 
> Mr. Richard Frenette served in the Canadian Forces for 27 years, retiring with the rank of Brigadier-General. Throughout his career, he has held many senior roles within the CF, including that of commanding officer of Canadian Forces Bases Farnham and Valcartier. He has also held the position of commander of the 35 Brigade Group and has served as deputy commander of the Quebec Area Land Forces.
> 
> Mr. Colin Reichle served for 22 years in the Canadian Forces, beginning as an infantry private and retiring with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. He has held multiple senior command positions in the CF, which include serving as the deputy commanding officer (DCO) of the North Saskatchewan Regiment, and as the Command Officer of the 20th Field Artillery Regiment. Mr Reichle also has extensive involvement with St John's Ambulance, having served as the director of its Alberta Council. He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of Saskatchewan, and a Master of Business Administration from Athabasca University.
> 
> Mr. Richard Rennie has served for 23 years in the Canadian Forces, retiring with the rank of Major. He served both as a logistics officer and as a lawyer with the Judge Advocate General. Mr. Rennie holds a Bachelor's Degree of Commerce from the University of British Columbia, a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Victoria, and a Master of Public Administration from Carleton University. He has also spent 10 years as the assistant to the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria, where he taught law and ethics courses for more than 20 years ....


More from the VAC Info-machine here.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Now that we know who's chosen and who's re-appointed, who is no longer on the board?


> An outspoken member of a veterans appeal board, who said his privacy was violated and that the federal agency treats ex-soldiers with disrespect, won't be reappointed.  Harold Leduc and two other members of the troubled agency have been shown the door, and in their places the Harper government has appointed a nurse with extensive experience in addiction treatment and former military officers.
> 
> The changes, which normally garner little public attention, were announced Sunday, one day ahead of Leduc's appearance before the House of Commons veterans affairs committee.  The Parliamentary body is investigating the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, an independent panel where ex-soldiers can challenge benefits decisions by the veterans department.
> 
> Leduc's long-anticipated testimony is expected to give the Opposition plenty ammunition, particularly the NDP, which has introduced a private members bill to scrap the board ....


----------



## Wookilar

Anyone have any insight on the new members?


----------



## blackberet17

The new ones won't be starting until mid-Nov. I'll have a report then


----------



## blackberet17

I will say, there's a lot of optics there...Mr. Leduc wasn't "dropped", nor did he "get the boot" (some of the other headlines I've seen). His term was up, just like the terms of five other Board members, only three of whom were reappointed.

Which happens.

A lot.

As for the other stuff, I can't comment, sorry guys.

This process is very political, as we all know.

It'll be interesting to see how the new Members play out. As long as I don't have to salute, I'm happy :rofl:


----------



## Wookilar

bb17,

How long are the terms for the Board members? Are the all 3-5 years?

I haven't kept tabs on any of them, I know knew one of the members distantly from my time at 1 VP, but I don't know if the Maj is still on the Board.

Is turnover a fairly common occurance? Or does it seem to coincide with just after election time?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## blackberet17

It varies, actually. According to our Web site, terms range from one to ten years. I worked with a Member a few years ago who was appointed for one year, which is really stupid, if you ask me. Training members takes a great deal of time, and it takes them a while to grasp the process (some are still learning, three- four- years on)

I believe the new appointees were given three-year terms.

There hasn't been a large "batch" of appointments since 2009 or 2010. We've had one or two named here and there, but four at once....weeeee. Back in 2009 or thereabouts, we had seven people appointed all around the same time.

We've got (all retired - and not including the new bunch) WO Leduc, Capt Maher, Maj Giraldeau, LCol Desjardins and a band director (Champagne), but not sure if he was Band Captain or BSM (Band Sgt-Maj, for anyone not knowing the musical side of things, sorry if I'm insulting somes' intelligence!).

The Board runs a process twice a year, mid winter and mid summer. But it's been two years I think since the last process (they ran one this Feb and this Aug).

It may be partly coincidence, but also...well...it's political, what can I say?


----------



## Rifleman62

I should have posted this before.

*Restoring Confidence in the VRAB*

Report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, Dec 12


----------



## 57Chevy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> *Restoring Confidence in the VRAB*



Thanks for sharing this interesting report.
Veterans should be taking the time to read it.


----------



## blackberet17

This may also be of interest. The VRAB-related sections have been highlighted (not by me. I don't have that kind of skill with a .pdf...

EDIT: I can't attach it, it's too big. But here's the link to the report, on the OVO's Web site.

http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/reports-rapports/annual-annuel-2011-2012-eng.cfm


----------



## Rifleman62

Look Up! Look way up! See the first subject in this forum?


----------



## krustyrl

I am unfortunately embarking on the appeal process and am seeing firsthand how the hair-splitting process is working.  Very frustrating trying to describe your duties, how you were injured, how the job was involved ...all this information to someone who knows next to nothing about you, your job, the military etc.
Any suggestions or recommendations would be entertained .


----------



## 57Chevy

krustyrl said:
			
		

> I am unfortunately embarking on the appeal process and am seeing firsthand how the hair-splitting process is working.  Very frustrating trying to describe your duties, how you were injured, how the job was involved ...all this information to someone who knows next to nothing about you, your job, the military etc.
> Any suggestions or recommendations would be entertained .



Ask your assigned advocate to provide some precedential cases, if any exists.

Find out about job descriptions pertaining to the numerous positions you were employed in during your service.

Explain how your injuries relate using your job descriptions. ( Try using the timeline approach making references to and attaching copies of all documents. Include dates. )

It can be a long process so don't give up.

Hope this helps.
Cheers


----------



## blackberet17

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Ask your assigned advocate to provide some precedential cases, if any exists.
> 
> Find out about job descriptions pertaining to the numerous positions you were employed in during your service.
> 
> Explain how your injuries relate using your job descriptions. ( Try using the timeline approach making references to and attaching copies of all documents. Include dates. )



Advocates usually have easy access to them, but print off the relevant ones: http://www.forces.gc.ca/health-sante/pd/cfp-pfc-154/AN-D-eng.asp

Krusty, if you want, pm me, and you can share specifics. I may be able to add some insight.


----------



## wesleyd

krustyrl said:
			
		

> I am unfortunately embarking on the appeal process and am seeing firsthand how the hair-splitting process is working.  Very frustrating trying to describe your duties, how you were injured, how the job was involved ...all this information to someone who knows next to nothing about you, your job, the military etc.
> Any suggestions or recommendations would be entertained .


I asked for all information regarding to my trade online, I'll check the link tomorrow at work on DWAN. I wrote an email to a Major in Ottawa. He asked me which duties I had carried out in my trade and a few days later he had the link with job descriptions for each job I had done in my trade. It included percentages of time standing sitting working with hands etc, work environment etc.
I am just beginning the appeal process for carpal tunnel syndrome. I applied and because there is not indication of me having issues with my wrists before they denied me. Even though the Specialist recommended surgery immediately and said this was indeed work related. I didn't get that in writing which I am trying to now.
Its frustrating I know, took me almost ten years to get a claim through for hearing loss. I post the link to the site tomorrow.


----------



## The Bread Guy

An update:  the Minister has named a new Vice-chair of the board - one sold as having both military and Operational Stress Injury Social Support program experience ....


> The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie, today announced a new and highly qualified appointment to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) in Veteran Owen Parkhouse, CD, MA. In addition to his duties as a Member, Mr. Parkhouse will also serve as the Board’s Vice Chair. This marks the first time in the history of the Board that a member with his military credentials has held a senior leadership position.
> 
> The appointment was made in accordance with VRAB’s merit-based selection process. Through this appointment, Minister Blaney is continuing to honor his commitment made to Veterans and stakeholders’ organizations to increase the number of Board members with military backgrounds.
> 
> "With the appointment of Owen Parkhouse, we are adding 25 years of military experience to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board," said Minister Blaney. "I have heard Veterans’ organizations loud and clear in their desire for the Board to have additional members with military expertise and we are continuing to deliver for them."
> 
> Owen Parkhouse began his career in the military within the ranks, eventually receiving a commission before retiring as a lieutenant-commander. Following his military career, Mr. Parkhouse was employed within the Operational Stress Injury Social Support (OSISS) program as a project coordinator, development officer and peer support coordinator. In these roles, he created and delivered numerous professional development presentations and developed social support programs for Canadian Armed Forces members and Veterans affected by operational stress injuries.
> 
> "This is exactly what we want to see as Veterans. You couldn’t have a better person on the Board than somebody with this kind of military and OSISS experience. I applaud the Minister," said Jim Lowther, CD, President and Founder of Veterans Emergency Transition Services Canada (V.E.T.S. Canada).
> 
> "It is encouraging to see Minister Blaney has responded to Veterans’ pleas with regards to appointments to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board," added Michael L. Blais, CD, President and Founder of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy. "The appointment of an experienced senior officer and Veteran familiar with the mental health issues Veterans of all eras are confronting is a positive development." ....


VAC Info-machine, 11 Jun 13

Will a new face helping interpret and implement the same old rules make a difference?   We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Wookilar

I just received my appeal decision a few weeks ago. It was a written submission by the advocate, so I didn't bother going to Charlottetown.

As far as BPA goes, I was pleased with my advocate; she understood exactly why I was not satisfied with the Review decision (Table of Disabilities was not applied properly).

For the Review itself, I felt that while the Board members were polite and respectful to my face (and Niner), their written decision was a slap in the face. The dismissed most of my testimony and totally dismissed everything my wife said (as it was "inconsequential").

For the Appeal, I got what the lawyer was asking for. The written summary I received was very complete and quite extensive.

The VRAB website was still advertising for openings. I was going to apply (seriously), but they do not have an office in Halifax. They do have positions in Toronto, Ottawa and Edmonton. If you've got some TI, got nothing to lose.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Wookilar said:
			
		

> The VRAB website was still advertising for openings. I was going to apply (seriously), but they do not have an office in Halifax. They do have positions in Toronto, Ottawa and Edmonton. If you've got some TI, got nothing to lose.


You've got until 31 Aug 13 to apply - from the FAQ:


> .... Q. What does a Member do after appointment to VRAB?
> 
> A. VRAB Members work full-time and are required to adjudicate review and appeal applications made to the VRAB under the Pension Act, the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, and other related Acts of Parliament. Members provide an independent review of disability pension/award and War Veterans Allowance decisions by hearing and adjudicating cases. This involves conducting hearings in numerous locations across the country in person and via video or teleconference; deciding cases and ensuring the related statutes are properly interpreted; and, writing clear reasons for decisions within specified time frames. Some Members are required to travel 3 out of 4 weeks to conduct hearings and some may be required to travel up to 35 weeks a year.
> 
> Q. How much are Members of VRAB paid?
> 
> A. Members’ salaries are fixed by an Order-in-Council upon appointment and paid within a salary range of $105,900 to $124,500.
> 
> Q. How long are Members' appointment terms?
> 
> A. Terms range from 1 to 10 years and may be eligible for reappointment. All Members serve on good behaviour.
> 
> (....)


----------



## GAP

Was there not some controversial dismissals from the VRAB boards somewhere when the members would not go along to get along.....? 

Southwest Ontario area if memory serves....


----------



## The Bread Guy

GAP said:
			
		

> Was there not some controversial dismissals from the VRAB boards somewhere when the members would not go along to get along.....?


Yup!


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Time for new rules.....
> 
> 
> 
> A prominent, long-standing member of the country's Veterans Review and Appeal Board had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign meant to discredit him using his private medical information as ammunition, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> The behind-the-scenes fight involving Harold Leduc has been so bad and so vicious that the Canadian Human Rights Commission quietly ordered the veterans board to pay the decorated, former warrant officer $4,000, including legal costs, for harassment he'd suffered from other agency members.
> 
> Leduc, who spent 22 years in the military, claims he was a target for gossip, innuendo and intimidation because he often sided with veterans in his review decisions ....
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Press, 12 Feb 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were called Santa Claus, often behind their backs.
> 
> Adjudicators at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board who sided too frequently with ex-soldiers got the dismissive moniker from some of their peers, according to a long-standing member who has broken his silence.
> 
> The slight was made possible by a subtle, but profound, change to the way the agency — now at the heart of another veterans' privacy scandal — began dissecting its decisions shortly after the Conservatives came to power.
> 
> The agency posts its overall favourability rating online, showing the percentage of times the independent board rules in favour of veterans who have appealed their benefit rulings by federal bureaucrats.
> 
> But in 2007, in addition to tracking favourable decisions by region, the board began measuring the number of times panel members were involved in decisions that came down on the side of former soldiers and RCMP members, according to PowerPoint presentations obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> Cases are heard by two-member review panels and appeals by three members. If one adjudicator rules in favour, the decision is a win for the veteran, regardless of what other members say.
> 
> The slicing and dicing of those statistics had far-reaching implications and is one of the tools board chairman John Larlee and his deputy used to lean on members perceived as overly-generous, says long-standing member Harold Leduc.
> 
> He has been embroiled in a long-running dispute with the board, including allegations of two privacy breaches.
> 
> "We sure felt the pressure. I know I felt it," Leduc said in an interview. "I'm not sure what board staff was saying behind my back, but I know with other members they'd call them Santa Claus because they're giving too much away."
> 
> He said board members were warned in 2008, prior to the arrival of John Larlee as the new chairman, that if their favourability rating for decisions was too high they would be called on the carpet ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Canadian Press, 13 Feb 12
Click to expand...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Why is our government letting VA get away with screwing over the soldiers who they send to war?

I keep reading stories about how fucked up VA is, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to sort them out.


----------



## OldSolduer

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Why is our government letting VA get away with screwing over the soldiers who they send to war?
> 
> I keep reading stories about how ****ed up VA is, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to sort them out.



The pace of change is glacial at best.


----------



## Teager

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The pace of change is glacial at best.



Exactly there is change its just moving at the speed Jim said. Take the recent SISIP class action for instance.


----------



## The Bread Guy

If there was a solution that would compensate wounded/disabled vets in a way that most people would consider fairly, and cost *ZERO extra bucks*, it would have been implemented.  As long as it would cost more to do this, there's no political appetite for it to happen, no matter WHICH party is in power.

Also, when it comes to making things happen if politicians want them to happen ....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> All we need is a Minister (or higher) to stand up and say, "the rules must change, and they will change".  After all, we've seen other instances where a Minister wants something (examples here, here, here, here, here and - even if it's not _entirely_ within government rules - here), and it happens pretty quickly.


.... not to mention this most recent example.

If the politicians _really_ want these changes, they _will_ happen.  It would cost waaaaaaaaaay more treasure than they're willing to spend, though, so it's _not_ happening.  Changing branch names and ribbons/bows/pins are cheap compared to what it would cost to overhaul how wounded/disabled vets are compensated, so you get different branch names, and ribbons/bows/pins.

My  :2c:


----------



## Teager

Heres what I have trouble understanding. The government obviously doesn't want to spend the money and make the changes. So now vets have been forced to go to court. This is where things get interesting and I believe the government likes to gamble. If the vets win it ends up costing the government way more money then if they had just done it right in the first place. Way more money as in legal fees, court costs, back dating expenses, and any intrest that gets tacked on. On the other hand if the government side wins in court they continue to save money minus the legal fees.

So why not do it right the first time around instead of taking the gamble risk every time?

Also it can take away votes for that government party that is in charge when they refuse to make change. If they did make good changes it could also work in their favour for more votes.


----------



## Nemo888

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Why is our government letting VA get away with screwing over the soldiers who they send to war?
> 
> I keep reading stories about how ****ed up VA is, but there doesn't seem to be any effort to sort them out.



I was a medic in when the NVC was introduced. It was brought in for one reason only. To save money. The costs looking after vets under the old system were going to exceed the cost of prosecuting the entire war.  This was unacceptable to the bean counters who luckily have no conscience or morals. The program has been incredibly successful in their view. If only we would just shut up.


----------



## OldSolduer

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> w. If only we would just shut up.



Pesky lot ain't we?


----------



## MJP

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I was a medic in when the NVC was introduced. It was brought in for one reason only. To save money. The costs looking after vets under the old system were going to exceed the cost of prosecuting the entire war.  This was unacceptable to the bean counters who luckily have no conscience or morals. The program has been incredibly successful in their view. If only we would just shut up.




Change doesn't happen without advocates pushing for change.  While politicians played a role changes were made to keep vocal minority in the legion appeased.  Good politics isn't always good policy.  When the NVC came in a whole bunch of programs were strenghtened at the loss of indexed monthly pensions.  I feel it was the Legion that really threw us under the bus as they fully supported and pushed it the NVC. It probably would not have been changed so drastically if they hadn't of supported it, considering again the bad optics that would play out in the media of a government trying to screw around with vets. They didn't give a flying fuck that anyone hurt after 2006 wasn't as well covered, as 99.9% of them were grandfathered under the old system.

A good example is MCpl Franklin who gets an index monthly pension for the rest of his life because he was injured before the NVC. A friend of mine injured in 06, has essentially the same injury and got a lump sum payment. Fairly substantial, but in no way shape or form will it ever monetarily match what MCpl Franklin gets over his lifetime. The Legion can go screw themselves. I hope they fade away into the night...


----------



## McG

We have now seen the pendulum arrive at a new extreme.  In the past , we had guys collecting DVA pensions for injuries that were neither debilitating nor even an impediment to progressing in their career.  Now, we have a single payment to buy-off guys with debilitating injuries that make continued service impossible.  I think we need to find a middle ground.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Teager said:
			
		

> So why not do it right the first time around instead of taking the gamble risk every time?


Because if it's in the courts, the gov't doesn't have to pay the extra money needed for the solutions until the courts say they do.  So while the Info-machine talks about how much wounded vets are respected (or at least respected by the private sector, anyway), the government lawyers come up with all sorts of arguments why the system should stay the way it is - recent case in point



			
				Teager said:
			
		

> Also it can take away votes for that government party that is in charge when they refuse to make change. If they did make good changes it could also work in their favour for more votes.


As someone waaaaaaay smarter than me has said here, support for the Canadian military across Canada is a mile wide and an inch deep - if there _were_ a lot of votes to get this way, it would happen.


----------



## the 48th regulator

If I may weigh in here.

I was severely wounded, in 1994, under the "Old" charter, and therefore collect a pension.  But let me state this.  I had to fight for the last 19 years to get to a level, that deserves the damage from the wounds I incurred, and I am still fighting.  I had to stare down into the belly of the beast, and claw and scrape, and justify for every percentage!

The old system may have seemed "excellent" but they would give you pittance, if anything, and make you fight for more.  All I say is, careful what you ask for folks.  The percentages I see be given now, would never have happened before, believe me.

dileas

tess


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MJP said:
			
		

> I feel it was the Legion that really threw us under the bus as they fully supported and pushed it the NVC. It probably would not have been changed so drastically if they hadn't of supported it, considering again the bad optics that would play out in the media of a government trying to screw around with vets............ The Legion can go screw themselves. I hope they fade away into the night...



I agree wholeheartedly.  The modern legion is a services club, with fewer and fewer members actually having any military service at all.  They certainly don't speak for me.


----------



## Infanteer

Two good points here:

1.  Middle ground needs to be found.  The NVC added a lot of benefits on to what was simply a monthly payout and as my hombre the 48th has pointed out, that wasn't always the greatest.  Just as many perceive the NVC as a way for the "system" to wash its hands of an injured vet, the old "here's your $376 a month, now go away please" wasn't much better.  Some of the benefits are really useful and are put in place for good reason and there needs to be a middle ground.

2.  I think the Legion wheels vets in on bridge night to validate itself.  It's no different than a local Rotary club but it uses a veneer of (mostly nonexistent) service and fancy medals to position itself on a different level.  They certainly don't speak for me either.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 1.  Middle ground needs to be found.  The NVC added a lot of benefits on to what was simply a monthly payout and as my hombre the 48th has pointed out, that wasn't always the greatest.  Just as many perceive the NVC as a way for the "system" to wash its hands of an injured vet, the old "here's your $376 a month, now go away please" wasn't much better.  Some of the benefits are really useful and are put in place for good reason and there needs to be a middle ground.


Good point - shame it seems to have to go to litigation to reinforce problems with the NVC (as opposed to them who says it's their great idea saying, "maybe it needs some tweaking").



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> 2.  I think the Legion wheels vets in on bridge night to validate itself.  It's no different than a local Rotary club but it uses a veneer of (mostly nonexistent) service and fancy medals to position itself on a different level.  They certainly don't speak for me either.


Sadly, they seem to have a lot of traction re:  being seen as "the voice of the vet".


----------



## Danjanou

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think the Legion wheels vets in on bridge night to validate itself.  It's no different than a local Rotary club but it uses a veneer of (mostly nonexistent) service and fancy medals to position itself on a different level.  They certainly don't speak for me either.



Welcome to my world.  : 

Basically you've nailed it. No matter how much the high command may state they want/need change and welcome the modern vets. The general consensus, at least I feel, among the leadership at lower ( Branch, Zone, District) is that they like things just as they are. They don't want change especially if it means "new vets" with actual leadership and management skills coming in and usurping their privileged postions ( see Dunning Krueger for a model of how Leadership often works at this level in the RCL).

Changes to the NVC is just lip service to the RCL , the older generation of vets aren't affected by it and they're not complaining to the new Leadership of the Legion about anything as long as the beer is cold and cheap and they get wheeled out now and then for a dog and pony show.

Now excuse me I need to get back to the Legion and discuss our latest plan to rearrange the deck chairs.  8)


----------



## Wookilar

For those that are interested:

http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/Employment-Emploi/Apply-Devenir-eng.cfm

VRAB is still looking.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest from the vets 'budman:


> The country's veterans ombudsman is disappointed the federal government has not extended legal assistance to ex-soldiers who find themselves battling for benefits in front of the Federal Court.
> 
> Guy Parent, as part of his review of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, recommended that Ottawa allow lawyers in the pension advocates branch to continue to represent former members whose cases end up in the courts.
> 
> The suggestion was made as part of a review of the appeal board that was conducted in the spring of 2012.
> 
> Almost three years on, Parent says the Conservative government has made good progress implementing some of his other recommendations, but the important question of legal representation remains outstanding.
> 
> In a letter to the ombudsman before he was replaced, former veterans affairs minister Julian Fantino said resources are better spent at the earlier stages of appeal in order to "get the right decisions at the earliest possible time."
> 
> But Parent says the federally appointed lawyers at the pension advocate branch know the particulars of individual cases and it doesn't make sense to see them drop out of the process just as the veteran reaches the most complicated legal ground ....


----------

