# VAC Return to Lifetime Pensions Discussion



## Teager

This comes from Facebook don't have a link at the moment. There has been some disagreement with the Pension and the CVA. Here is an update from Major Ret Campbell.


Please Share 
Mark C.
THE PENSION UPDATE

I recently attended the latest gathering of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs {MVA) Policy Committee in Ottawa on 31 Aug 16. Significant progress was made in terms of further refining/defining the Committee's recommended Financial Compensation model for the Minister's decision and subsequent efforts within Cabinet and Treasury Board. All done with a view towards eliminating the current financial gap that exists between recipients of the former Pension Act (PA) versus those disenfranchised under the New Veterans Charter (NVC}. We are confident that with further adjustment to offsets/clawbacks, the propsed financial compensation model will be more generous than any previous package in terms of net income. We are proposing a compensation model that is in everyone's best interests and that is fair/equitable to all.

Unfortunately, it has now become abundantly clear that one dissenting member of the MVAC's Policy Committee is dead set against the otherwise unanimously recommended proposals of the majority. This individual is currently ignoring the committee's non-disclosure agreement to cast single-sided aspersions against the work of the committee and even the motivations of is volunteer members. This is all extremely distastefull and unfortunate, but I for one will not stand for a rogue individual compromising the incredibly important work of the all-volunteer Policy Committee simply because he self-styles himself as some sort of "singular saviour of the veteran cause". Ego aside, there is qute frankly little apparent substance in this individual's ceaseless insistence upon a different path. "Equality in National Recognition of Sacrifice" is the buzz-phrase he tosses around with no real meaning and no coherent basis in achievable reality - at least not as proposed by the dissenter. However, this is simply my equally personal view, and you are therefore free to side however you see fit. 

I believe that the Policy Committee is recommending a reasonable, affordable and achievable solution to the problem of multiple, modern-day veteran compensation schemes within Canada. You will all be able to judge for yourselves when the recommendations and proposals of the Policy Committee are briefed to the next Stakeholder's Summit on 5/6 October 2016. Until then, I suggest that we all turn down the rhetoric and cease casting personal aspersions based on what amounts to simple disagreement between a Committee of 10 Veteran advisors and one dissenting member. 

No matter their other interests or affiliations/representations, all of the Policy Committee members are CAF veterans volunteering their time (and their family time) for the best interests of the Canadian Veteran community. As such, all members of the Policy Advisory Committee are equally deserving of respect and "air time". It is NOT a venue for ego-challenged members to quantify the comparative value of their inuries based on severity and cirucumstance. "Dick-measuring" in this instance is both unecessary and ultimately ill-advised. The only people it pleases as those who would see fit to deny Canada's veterans their due. This, among other reasons, is why the in-fighting must cease. It simply feeds those who would do us harm. 

FWIW, I stand by the recommendations that I and my fellow veterans on the Policy Advisory Committee have developed. We honestly believe that our recommended meaures represent a fair and achievable way ahead for both the injured veteran and the taxpayer.. This is not to say that our recommendations will be adopted in whole or part, as the government has other imperatives to consider at the same time. All we can do is put the best possible recommendations forward to our elected officials for their consideration and action.


----------



## Lightguns

Well, that's gonna start a fine internet discussion......


Policy Advisory Group Members

•Michael Blais, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
•Major (Retired) Mark Campbell
•Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
•Michel Houle, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
•Brigadier-General Michael Jorgensen, Canadian Armed Forces
•Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald
•Luc O’Bomsawin, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
•Brigadier General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
•Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew
•Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion


----------



## Teager

I believe the real discussion will come on Oct 5/6 when everyone can see the recommendations that have been made. The real question will be will the government adopt those recommendations?


----------



## Lightguns

Funny, how I knew exactly who he spoke of.  Here's the other side of the story, he is calling for a Protest action on 4 October against the committee:

_*NVC- Pension Act promises - Smoke, mirrors, bait and switch.

Turning point. 

I am in consultation mode, feeling betrayed on principle at a whole new level. Not sure we should remain on advisory level, please comment yeah or nayyy below. 

I founded the CVA on Equality in recognition of National Sacrifice standards and as a proud Royal Canadian -RCR I can remember back this past decade, watching the war in TV, struck with the horror of recognizing names as Operation Medusa passed. Since 2010, as an advocate, I would bear personal witness to the great sacrifice shared by widows, mother, father, spouse and children and extended families when the catastrophic consequences consumed a life or imparted war time wounds on mind, soul and body and was profoundly disgusted that, with the support of the nations stakeholders, the disrespectful pain and suffering award replaced pension for the wounded and the previous pensions for wife and child eliminated. 

We discussed the Lump Sum Award today, once again, there was consensus that the award was sufficient and I was reminded that it was the major stakeholders platform in the past to compare the lump sum award to tort law. I recommended that the LSA be at least raised to the 500 thousand dollar threshold, that this would differentiate between negligence at the work site and getting shot.... but I was over ruled. I think I even heard one person laugh. They do not respect your sacrifice enough to fight for the ideal that national sacrifice is more worthy than negligence at the work site, that getting blown up or taking a bullet for queen and country is no different work site NEGLIGENCE, that you, my friends, your sacrifice is equitable only a tort law statistic. 

We are the only dissenting position. I believe that equating national sacrifice on the killing fields of Afghanistan to an negligence injury at a safety regulated workplace in Canada disrespects national sacrifice, that the bar mist much higher, that it is not a money grab and was profoundly disappointed that there was no support. ZERO! 

Re establish the life time pension. Lets be clear, their was only one lifetime pension to e-establish an the promise was clear and supported by the opportunity of choice between what was or the LSA. I believe the Pain and Suffering Award as was provided to me should be accorded to those who fought on the Panjawaii as decade ago and the multitudes of those who have been wounded since and as Founder of the CVA fighting on the equality issues, we have consistently presented a platform that restored the balance through choice of a revised Lump Sum Award -now denied- or the option to return to the existing provisions accorded through the Pension Act through a simple harmonized approach that would provide monthy payments when the enforced LSA expired through monthly increment and continue to life.

I asked fo this option to be put forward... denied. 

There must be equality in recognition o national sacrifice and, having fought so hard at that level, having explained exactly what equality meant to the PM and dozens of MPs, after attaining promises at the highest levels, going to Trenton last year to bear witness to Mr Trudeau's grandoise announcements....

Bullshit!

The promise to RE-ESTABLISH the life time pension has been corrupted, there will be choice, just not to what we were led to believe prior to the election. 

BAIT and SWITCH! 

If you were accorded a LUMP SUM AWARD, if you believe that you were promised the choice to return too the pension act, to have the same standard of respect as do I and thousands of other veterans? Did you think that you sacrifice was equal to mine? That your wife's pain and sacrifice was equal to mine. Did you think that a small pension for your kids as was for mine and thousands of other disabled mom and dad vets would be yours? 

THINK AGAIN....

I have fought, my God, I have fought so hard to have our voices heard on equality, to ensure those of The RCR to whom I passed the torch and others who proudly carried the banner into battle would have the same level of respect for their sacrifice as do I and everyone else prior to 2006. 

But it is the same old, same old...

AS the ONLY stakeholder at the table, then and now, that fought for equality on this issue, I can tell you there will never be consensus support at the Policy Advisory Group, they do not not support the equality principles the CVA and/or, I suspect, want to use this opportunity to create THEIR version of the life time pension, not one that was promised, not one that we have fought so hard for these past five years without wavering.

You must understand, after the teleconference today, I/the CVA will always stand alone at the table.

If I return to it, frankly. Same old, same old, whats the point when there so many contesting equality and, get this, now declaring a portion of the pain and suffering award is income replacement and must be taken into consideration for future economic support. 

I hope, however, that we will not stand alone on Parliament Hill October 4th or at Riding offices across the nation October 4th.

I do not like being lied to. Or being used as a prop on a scooter.

I will consider resigning position on Advisory over the weekend, I am not keen on having my name or the Canadian Veterans Advocacy's name being sucked in the dross of consensus when we are adamantly opposed. Feel free to offer any advise on this level. 

This will be a political decision, the decision will be rendered there, not at the advisory level. 

This is where we must fight 

OCTOBER 4TH PROTEST... 

I will rep a new ops order this weekend, first they dick us over on SISIP ELB equality now, with the "same old same old" golly gee, what did we Reeealllly mean, they are going to dick up over on THE promise, the Sacred Obligation promise.

For that, they deserve NO allegiance.

Equality between the PENSION ACT PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARD and the LUMP SUM AWARD will be the focus of the protest on October 4th.
 Mike
*_


----------



## George Wallace

Lightguns

You were not the only one to figure it was the "usual suspect".    :facepalm:


----------



## Teager

I find it rather insulting that he wants a protest on Oct 4th the day before the information is to be released. At least let Veterans have the information first.


----------



## George Wallace

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Funny, how I knew exactly who he spoke of.  Here's the other side of the story, he is calling for a Protest action on 4 October against the committee:



Here is a link to the info on this protest, for those who may be wondering what it is about:

SISIP Equality in Recognition of National Sacrifice Protest


----------



## Lightguns

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Lightguns
> 
> You were not the only one to figure it was the "usual suspect".    :facepalm:



I am actually a little surprised.  After being declared persona non grata by O'Toole before the election, he campaigned like a good liberal trooper during the election.  He got his reward of a committee spot and I expected a good slurping lap dog would be his response.  I think he believes he is bigger than the government which makes him a very loose cannon.  Maybe a second banishment will result?  I will wait for the package and then see.


----------



## George Wallace

Teager said:
			
		

> I find it rather insulting that he wants a protest on Oct 4th the day before the information is to be released. At least let Veterans have the information first.



Makes one wonder doesn't it.  Not at all logical.  If you are going to protest, at least know what you are protesting.


----------



## Lightguns

So basically, If I am reading this right, he wants everyone who was disabled under a SISIP covered injury to have the same benefits as those disabled in an operation theatre where SISIP does not cover them.  What would be the purpose of SISIP then?


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Makes one wonder doesn't it.  Not at all logical.  If you are going to protest, at least know what you are protesting.


Not if you want your version of events out before the version you don't want people to buy into #PutYourSpinOnEarly


			
				Teager said:
			
		

> I find it rather insulting that he wants a protest on Oct 4th the day before the information is to be released. At least let Veterans have the information first.


It could be worse - there was also some FB canvassing of opinion about protesting linked to the Invictus Games.


----------



## Occam

Lightguns said:
			
		

> So basically, If I am reading this right, he wants everyone who was disabled under a SISIP covered injury to have the same benefits as those disabled in an operation theatre where SISIP does not cover them.  What would be the purpose of SISIP then?



No, the issue is that ELB is about to be bumped from 75% to 90% of pre-retirement salary.  However, for those still on SISIP, SISIP does not have the authority to increase the income loss replacement threshold to 90%, and nobody can order them to do so.  VAC doesn't even know who you are if you're on SISIP.  That's why those on SISIP should be brought over to VAC where they would be entitled to the ELB increase. 



			
				Teager said:
			
		

> I believe the real discussion will come on Oct 5/6 when everyone can see the recommendations that have been made. The real question will be will the government adopt those recommendations?



Blais has already stated that he is the lone dissenter on the return to lifetime disability pension issue - which leads me to believe that the committee has wheeled and dealed something less.  The gov't promised an option to return to a lifetime disability pension - why are we letting them off the hook?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Occam said:
			
		

> Blais has already stated that he is the lone dissenter on the return to lifetime disability pension issue - which leads me to believe that the committee has wheeled and dealed something less.  The gov't promised an option to return to a lifetime disability pension - why are we letting them off the hook?



I'll wait and see what the libs roll out before I decide whether we were short changed or not.

Personally, I don't like Blais. In three years he caused more dissention amongst Veterans than the RCL ever has.

YMMV.


----------



## gryphonv

Occam said:
			
		

> No, the issue is that ELB is about to be bumped from 75% to 90% of pre-retirement salary.  However, for those still on SISIP, SISIP does not have the authority to increase the income loss replacement threshold to 90%, and nobody can order them to do so.  VAC doesn't even know who you are if you're on SISIP.  That's why those on SISIP should be brought over to VAC where they would be entitled to the ELB increase.



A recommendation from my VAC case manager with this issue is to apply for ELB from VAC even if you are on SISIP Manulife Voc Rehab. Approval should be all but guaranteed if you are accepted for Voc Rehab. Under the old rules there is overlap, so while SISIP is paying you 75%. VAC's top up to 75% is 0, so they don't pay you anything. But after the new rules kick into effect. VAC's top up will be 15%, to bring you to the stated 90%. 

One issue I see from this is how does SISIP Manulife account for the cash. If they look at the 15% as extra income, you could get clawed back 50% of it, as their rules on extra income is clawed back at 50% until you reach 100% of your pre release salary and then it's clawed back at 100%. 

Most likely it won't be affected by the claw back, but time will tell.


----------



## Occam

You already know more about the situation than I do.  What I know about it was explained to me, as I'm personally not in that situation so I haven't had the need to go into it in-depth.  I hope it's addressed, but it does illustrate how not all the different scenarios for veterans are being examined and consequently people are being left out in the cold with regard to policy changes.


----------



## kratz

Thank you for the discussion, and posting your comment today gryphonv.

I'm one of the rare pers receiving SISIP ELB vice VAC's version. 
So I've been reading this discussion with interest.


----------



## prairefire

I am starting to have difficulty separating the actual issues from the personalities involved. Admittedly my perspective is limited. I left the CF in 1989 and I am what is best called a hybrid as I receive a 20% pension and have received a 65% award. I would prefer to have received just pension and I still feel that since I was out of the FOrces long before the NVA I should be covered only under the pension act. However that is my position and I believe strongly that I should not be under the NVA at all because many of the benefits are not available to me. Yet I also understand that lifetime pensions are not the only issue in play. 

What I am having problems with is that how can I protest what I know nothing about except gossip and hearsay.....??? Many of the other benefit related issues are also worthy of consideration and that there may have to be several different approaches to resolve this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Because that's what the government does. They force their agenda by making impossible for clients to understand where we're headed.


----------



## McG

Occam said:
			
		

> The gov't promised an option to return to a lifetime disability pension - why are we letting them off the hook?


Maybe, when those with a vested interest got into the details, it was found that a full return of the old pension was not worth the lump sum and other benefits that came with the NVC.  Maybe guys like Mark C found a middle ground that is better for us.


----------



## brihard

Yeah, I've been watching this for a few days now and trying without success to get a straight answer out of Mike Blais. I don't beleive for a second that Mark Campbell et al have sold other vets down the river. For those who don't know him, Mark was a PPCLI Major. He's receiving benefits under the New Veterans Charter for the loss of both legs and a testicle. He's one of the plaintiffs in the Equitas lawsuit. He knows exactly what is achievable and how it's going to be achieved. I consider the burden of proof to be on Mike Blais in this one, as he's making the extraordinary claim that he alone at that table is pushing for the right thing to happen. I suspect that it's more a matter of him insisiting on certain labels and terms being applied that the others won't go for. I suspect he's looking solely at that part of the benefit that is deemed to be for pain and suffering and saying it needs to equal the total historical payouts under the pension act, even though that was also an economic benefit.

I've asked him directly, and am still waiting for an answer. Either way we'll find out on the 5th. I'll be there.


----------



## Teager

Brihard said:
			
		

> Either way we'll find out on the 5th. I'll be there.



Keep us posted. I bet it's going to be a very interesting weekend.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Have your say

“Have Your Say” is an engagement tool to further involve Veterans, stakeholders and Canadians in a constructive dialogue on Veterans’ issues and priorities.

Your input will help ensure we are moving in a direction that will make a real and substantial difference in the lives of veterans and their families. Read the records of discussions from the Stakeholder Summits and VAC's six advisory groups and join the discussion!

To help answer those questions, a stakeholder summit and six Ministerial advisory groups have been established. Read the records of their discussions and tell us if you agree, disagree or have a brand new idea. Join the discussion.

All members for each commite can be found on the link above, by clicking on the appropriate advisory committee.


----------



## George Wallace

Good link John.

Thanks


----------



## the 48th regulator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Good link John.
> 
> Thanks



Thank you.


----------



## ModlrMike

That article popped up on my feed today. While I generally try to avoid making snap judgements, i was pretty certain who was being referred to when I read through it. Good to see that my spidy senses are intact.


----------



## loadiecc150

Just like prairiefire, I am both new and old charter! I would prefer the monthly pension hands down; however, I will wait to see the options on 4 Oct.

 I am an open supporter of Mike Blais, he is fighting for what he believes, as do I about the return to the life long monthly pension. 

Currently it's quite confusing to navigate the system and what's available. One needs a case manager who is willing to point us in the right direction as opposed to what seems the majority who keep it all a secret!

As some of you are aware I am well over the 100% limit, I also have numerous claims in appeal and two in first stage. I know things will end up in a positive way; however, it takes FOREVER to get there!

Even some of the case managers aren't fully aware of how the systems works. Why isn't there a definition for PIA levels and what are the criteria to get to those levels. I know I'm messed up pretty bad, both physically and mentally. I'm betting I will only get the lowest level of PIA with the supplement (hopefully). 

Now things will change yet again, God, I hope for the better!

The way I see it, I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL WHO FIGHT THE FIGHT FOR US. I don't care how it gets done as long as it gets done!

I was a Regular member for 20+ years and my family and I suffer for those 20 years on a daily basis. Why should I have to fear living in poverty because of something that wasn't my fault? We all need to feel normal and not live pay cheque to pay cheque! Also when we turn 65, we shouldn't lose The benefits we currently receive, they should continue, just like the old charter is! Life long pensions.

Rant over, my brain is spent!


----------



## Lightguns

Like many here, I am Old System and NVC and would prefer a monthly pension.  I will wait til 6 October before storming the gates.


----------



## Teager

Looks like the Minister wants everyone to be patient or as some think  the Liberals are waiting to see the outcome of the Equitas lawsuit.



> Hehr: Be Patient With Veterans Lifelong Pension
> 
> Matt Carty
> September 23, 2016 12:30 pm
> Hehr: Be Patient With Veterans Lifelong Pension
> WINNIPEG – Canadian veterans are being asked to be patient when it comes to the re-establishment of their lifelong pension.
> 
> Canada’s Veteran Affairs Minister Kent Hehr was in Winnipeg on Friday to meet with new office employees and service members.
> 
> 
> He was asked about his party’s election promise to bring back the lifelong pension for veterans after it was eliminated in 2006 by the former Conservative government in favour of a controversial lump sum payment.
> 
> “We’re going to continue to work towards having a clearer option for a lifetime pension and I ask people to be somewhat patient,” Hehr said.
> 
> There is currently a lawsuit making its way through the courts in British Columbia that was filed by six severely disabled Afghanistan veterans in 2012.
> 
> It was halted in 2015 during the election campaign with the hopes that a new government would create new legislation on lifelong pension for veterans, but as of June the lawsuit is back on.
> 
> A judge is expected to make a decision some time in the fall.
> 
> “We can’t run government by lawsuit, but we can implement good public policy and that’s exactly what we’re doing and I can say we are very proud of the work we are doing,” Hehr said.
> 
> The lack of action on the government’s part has not sat well with veterans who preferred the lifelong pension over the lump-sum.
> 
> Winnipeg military reservist Harvey Gingras says he took the lump sum of about $93,000.
> 
> “You get a large check, does not last very long. Especially people who have PTSD or any psychological problems – impulses spend it. Especially the younger ones who are getting out now don’t really know how to manage funding,” Gingras said.



http://www.inews880.com/syn/107/161101/hehr-be-patient-with-veterans-lifelong-pension


----------



## Wookilar

Have to add, Maj (Ret'd) Campbell is a stand up guy (no pun intended so none of you smartasses out there...) so I'll take his word for it. Note, the lawsuit is still on, so he obviously feels there is more to be done.

As for SISIP/ELB: SISIP is not regarding the top-up to be income, and therefore will not be reducing their payments in any way.

That's a direct quote from my case manager from about 20 minutes ago, and she seems pretty switched on.

Now, the old Log O Fin side of my brain says that computers do funny things and are only as good as the data we put into them...sooo I will wait and see for:
1) The calculation from VAC;
2) The actual payment from VAC; and,
3) if Manulife will be asking for income statements the month after.

If anyone on SISIP out there has not applied for ELB, get your ass in gear and fill out the paperwork. You have nothing to lose. I applied for ELB upon release (2013) and was granted it, but since SISIP fulfilled the 75% payment, no top-up.

Watch and shoot.

Wook


----------



## prairefire

October 6th has come and gone and I was left with the impression from earlier comments in this thread that there was likely to be some sort of either stupendously horrible announcement or wondrous achievement. Especially with some individuals comments calling for a protest...........

So after all the donner and blitzen what real news is there?? :argument:


----------



## OldSolduer

If you're holding your breath- don't. 

The wheels of government turn extremely slowly, particularly on this.


----------



## cdnwo

Was thinking the very same thing today. Nothing in the forums or news related.


----------



## cdnwo

Not exactly sure what progress or decision this explains. 

http://m.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/2016-10-13/article-4662487/KENT-HEHR:-Working-together-for-veterans/1


----------



## Lightguns

I received a letter from Manulife about the top up yesterday and where to apply.  Not sure that is news but it is news!


----------



## The Bread Guy

cdnwo said:
			
		

> Not exactly sure what progress or decision this explains.
> 
> http://m.theguardian.pe.ca/Opinion/2016-10-13/article-4662487/KENT-HEHR:-Working-together-for-veterans/1


Based on this:


> ... I had three main objectives going into the Summit. I wanted to reach a common understanding of the challenges we face; I wanted all participants to hear and discuss the progress the Advisory Groups are making; and I wanted a solid understanding of their best advice and recommendations to help inform the government about the best way forward.
> 
> I am confident that we accomplished that.
> 
> (...)
> 
> I made a commitment to veterans’ organizations and stakeholders - and to all Canadians - to be more open and transparent and to engage them in a dialogue on how we can better support veterans. ...


... here's the plain text:
-- Held the big meeting 5-6 October - hoped to come away with everybody being on the same page, everybody updated on everyone's work and understanding exactly what participants wanted.
-- "I am confident that we accomplished that."
-- Minister promised to be open/transparent in working with them on how to improve the system.

I'd love to hear from anyone with better information from the meetings themselves -- especially given some social media ... static around what did or didn't happen.


----------



## RobA

To me, it sounds like nothing got done, and it was just more political double speak.

I fully expect the next thing to happen is that, based on the "wonderful feedback" given at the meetings, the GoC has decided it's necessary to convene another dozen committees to REALLY put the boots to that dead horse for the next 18-24 months. Gotta beat it, and beat it, and beat it again.


----------



## brihard

I was there at the summit in my capacity as a member of one of the six advisory groups (mental health in my case). What do you guys want to know? I'm happy to answer any questions about it, within the scope of what I can speak to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Brihard said:
			
		

> I was there at the summit in my capacity as a member of one of the six advisory groups (mental health in my case). What do you guys want to know? I'm happy to answer any questions about it, within the scope of what I can speak to.



Tanks! Brihard,

What has been said about the return to lifelong pensions (how and when) and what is the status of the 90% top up and how will it be applied.?


----------



## kratz

Brihard said:
			
		

> I was there at the summit in my capacity as a member of one of the six advisory groups (mental health in my case). What do you guys want to know? I'm happy to answer any questions about it, within the scope of what I can speak to.



So 60 days to answer medical questionnaire is normal for VAC?  With new medical staff? Of course I'm mad, this is my 3rd kick in over 800 days. The RCL has hurt my efforts more than helped....and I'm an ordinary member!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thanks, Brihard!

Meantime, here's what the Vets' Ombudsman says he thought of the summit:


> Last week, I participated in the Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) Stakeholder Summit in Gatineau, Quebec. It had broad engagement from Veterans’ organizations and advocates from across the country. I was particularly impressed by the situational analysis and recommendations presented by the Ministerial Advisory Groups on Policy, Service Excellence, Mental Health, Families, Care and Support, and Commemoration as well as status updates from the leaders in the room.
> 
> As General Vance emphasized, we need to put as much effort, structure and support in place for serving members and their families at the time of release as we did at the time of recruitment. We also need to recognize that this is not a “one-size-fits-all affair” – particularly for the approximately 1,500 members who are medically released each year.
> 
> If you are told to leave the military because you can no longer meet the occupational requirements of the job – known as ‘universality of service’ – then the government has an obligation to ensure that you are supported and are able to transition to civilian life successfully.
> 
> The first thing that ought to be done is to make sure that the CF Pension of all releasing members is waiting for them when they take off their uniform for good. For many, this is the main contributor to financial security post-release.
> 
> Over the last two years, my team and the DND/CF Ombudsman’s team have worked together to fix the system. In our project summary “Joint Transition Project - Closing the Seam”, we map the transition process and highlight to government the top three things that need to be done now to make a difference: applying once for all VAC benefits and having a navigator help members through the process; reducing wait times for the Canadian Forces pension; eliminating duplication and overlap between the different programming offered by DND and VAC.
> 
> VAC also needs to improve how it delivers services to Veterans and their families. I recently submitted a brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs with suggestions on how VAC can modernize its service delivery and make it more Veteran-centric. I support change that would improve wait times for benefits, and I believe that there are other ways to improve the backlog.
> 
> I urge Parliamentarians to use all of their political will to reduce program complexity for Veterans. This would go a long way to improving service delivery so that Veterans get the services and benefits they need.
> 
> I and members of my team remain committed to ensuring fairness for ill and injured Veterans so that they obtain the care, support and compensation they need. While it is recognized that there are challenges, what is needed is constructive discussion and a focus on the end game. Now is the time to get it done.
> 
> That was also the broad consensus that I found amongst Summit participants and I am pleased that DND and VAC are working diligently together towards the desired outcome of successful transition. I will continue to monitor progress in this area and push for change.


----------



## Lightguns

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Thanks, Brihard!
> 
> Meantime, here's what the Vets' Ombudsman says he thought of the summit:



This is a political hockey puck that everyone is going to make careers and expense accounts out of stick handling the rest of their lives without ever crossing the blue side on either end.  Every one of those so and so's that stood on that stage and announced the NVC should be dragged through the streets and set upon by their victims.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Every one of those so and so's that stood on that stage and announced the NVC should be dragged through the streets and set upon by their victims.


Sadly, that'd be a pretty looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong line ...


----------



## brihard

recceguy said:
			
		

> What has been said about the return to lifelong pensions (how and when) and what is the status of the 90% top up and how will it be applied.?



90% top up- already done for pure ELB cases. I'm not 100% sure for SISIP cases, but anecdotally a bunch of people have gotten it already. Tehre is some very jusitfied griping that people who are totally and permanently disabled deemed by SISIP still ned to apply for Rehab through VAC to get the remaining 15%. I have not heard of anyone being denied it in these circumstances, but it may hapen and if so will be the next stink bomb to drop on the department. SISIP remains a big issue, and general consensus is it needs in its entirety to die in a fire.

Pension option Nothing confirmed yet. The policy group presented their suggestion, and it's essentially a blended model of the two systems. I will not do it justice, but I'll try to get the gist of it. Picture two columns- Pain and suffering, and economic loss. Pain and suffering, in their vision, would include both the existing lump sum, and would essentially bring back the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance, tax free, with easier access. There would also be an enhanced caregiver benefit probably analogous with the attendance allowance. Critical Injury Benefit would go away. On the economic loss side, ELB would continue to exist, but would be tax free like the old pension act payments. Income offset would be reduced to incentivize return to work. I believe ELB would continue past 65, and RISB would cease to exist.

There's more to it than that, but those are the broad strokes as best as I can recall. One critical element that they explicitly included was that formulas would be structured to ensure that any vet receiving benefits under such a new, blended system would make NO LESS than they would have under the strict pension act system. That would ensure nobody was worse off than they were before and would restore pension act equity. Note that these are recommendations from one of the advisory groups tasked to generate them, this is not a government position. It is intended to be achievable for budget 2017. It is not a simple restoration of a pension as it previously existed, but in terms of providing a stable monthly income for serious disability, the elements as I saw them presented combined to achieve that. Again, I'm not presenting it particularly well here because I don't have access to the slide deck used.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> So 60 days to answer medical questionnaire is normal for VAC?  With new medical staff? Of course I'm mad, this is my 3rd kick in over 800 days. The RCL has hurt my efforts more than helped....and I'm an ordinary member!



Sorry man, that's outside my arcs. I do know that VAC is chronically running behind on applications and assessments, and that it will stil be some time before increased staffing allows them to get back to hitting their service standards. I'm not making excuses for them, they're in a sorry state. It's an acknowledged reality that ramping capacity back up will take time.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Thanks, Brihard!
> 
> Meantime, here's what the Vets' Ombudsman says he thought of the summit:



Parent is basically saying all the same stuff everyone has been saying anyway. I don't thinkhe has much of an audience these days. However he did allude to a good key note speech from Gen Vance in which he heavily emphasized the need to properly address the transition to civilian life. The 'Vance Sends' that we took away from it is he intends to create a commanded unit rather than a bureaucracy in order to deal with transition, and to get it to the point where there is a smooth handoff where the day you take off your uniform, your benefits start. He got asked about simply not authorizing releases until pensions and benefits are set up, the answer that came back as best as I can tell is that it's not viable due to an organizational inability to hold that many people in limbo, occupying PYs. A disappointing answer, but the one he had to give. CAF however IS invested in sorting this one out as aprt and parcel of the 'looking after our people' theme.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Tanks! Brihard!


----------



## Wookilar

WRT SISIP/ELB, VAC has told me that they are aiming for the payments to be done for end-Oct for those that were already approved for ELB. Caveat: that depends on people sending in the info they have from their pay stubs OR the very plainly worded letter that SISIP and VAC sent out with all the info and numbers on it needed for the calculation in a timely manner. I have to say, My VAC Account is so simple to use, especially for something like this. Scan, upload, confirm, done your part.

I think SISIP needs to go away as well as it just ends up being a barrier to so many VAC programs. I have been deemed "permanently disabled" by SISIP but VAC doesn't have the same criteria and it just ends up confusing so much crap.


----------



## Teager

One of the questions asked on Trudeaus tour. Not much of an answer.



> *Trudeau faces tough questions as he kicks off cross-country tour
> 
> Prime minister faces range of questions at Kingston, Ont., town hall on 1st leg of outreach trip*
> 
> Another woman seemed to choke up as she criticized the Liberal government's handling of benefits for veterans.
> 
> "You promised the injured veterans you would restore the lifetime disability pension," she said. "So when are you going to be restoring these lifelong disability pensions for our injured? And stop pursuing this in court as [you promised]?" she asked.
> 
> "As you say, there are still more things to do and we are going to continue to work with veterans groups, continue to work with advocates, continue [to work with] MPs of all stripes," Trudeau responded.
> 
> "We're going to continue to work on keeping not just an electoral promise we made to Canadians, but a promise and commitment that every government makes to the parents and the families of young men and women who sign up for our forces."
> 
> The woman later stood up and complained the prime minister had not answered her questions.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-tour-grassroots-canadians-1.3932162


----------



## Teager

> Next week's federal budget will re-iterate the Liberal government's campaign promise of returning to injured veterans to a system of lifetime pensions, government sources told CBC News on Friday.
> 
> But there will be no dollar figures attached to the assurance in Wednesday's fiscal plan — something the sources say will change later this year.
> 
> The political trial balloon, which is also being reported by Radio-Canada, came on the same day the Veteran Affairs department issued a statement reminding the public, and the politically-charged veterans community in particular, that lump-sum injury payments to wounded ex-soldiers will increase on April 1.
> 
> Ottawa revives Harper-era legal arguments to block pensions for injured vets
> In addition, those who've already received the contentious disability awards going back to 2006 will be eligible for extra cash.
> 
> It is the latest in a flurry of mostly behind-the-scene activity involving the sensitive veterans file.
> 
> The sources said the decision to reference the campaign promise in the budget, without providing dollar figures, was meant to ease growing unrest in the veterans community.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr was before a House of Commons committee last week, where he was decidedly circumspect about whether the government would fulfil the life-time pension commitment in next week's budget.



More at link.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vets-lifetime-pensions-1.4030353


----------



## ModlrMike

If it's not costed, it doesn't exist, and is easy to ignore. I won't hold my breath. Remember,  this is the same gang that engineered the NYC in the first place.


----------



## Teager

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If it's not costed, it doesn't exist, and is easy to ignore. I won't hold my breath. Remember,  this is the same gang that engineered the NYC in the first place.



True but they have now committed to a timeline. Although no old system pension is coming back so who knows what this will look like when they draw it up.


----------



## brihard

Not surprised. The message has been fired at them loud and clear from the loud/obnoxious parts of the veterans community that there had better be something in this budget, or they will face a political revolt from a group that made a lot of loud and painful noise against the last government. Bear in mind this is also still against the backdrop of the Equitas lawsuit on almost exactly this issue, and which is presently awaiting a court decision that should allow it to go to trial.

It won't be a reversal to the Pension Act system. That was floated in December 2015 at the VAC stakeholders conference and was almost universally shot down. NVC has a lot of good components; really ONLY the lump sum is hated- the rest offers a lot. We will in all likelihood be seeing a hybrid system that will preserve the bulk of the current benefits, and will enhance monthly payments in order to achieve equity with the Pension Act payments. Some of the usual suspects will piss and moan about 'economic' benefits versus those for 'sacrifice', but thwere it really matters - bottom line dollars in pockets - I believe the government recognizes that post-2006 vets need to:
- Not be disadvantaged in comparison to the Pension Act;
- Have every opportunity to go through vocational rehab and education so they can have a meaningful future;
- Be compensated for the economic impact of restricted career growth (E.g., blown up as a Pte/Cpl instead of retiring as a WO/MWO /Maj)
- See appropriate comepsnation along similar lines for family members who are stuck being primary caregivers instead of pursuing their own careers.

I think we're going to see another layer of band aid for this one. NVC version 2.4, when what we need is a version 3.0 clean rewrite. Right now the total suite of possible benefits include but aren't limited to: Disability award, Earnings Loss Benefit, Permanent Incapacitation Allowance, Critical Injury Benefit, SISIP LTD, Retirement Income Security Benefit, Reserve Force Compensation, Employment Insurance disability benefits, Canada Pension Plan - Disability; Disability Tax Credit; Canadian Forces Pension payments...

It's baffling and dizzying. And a lot of these offset against each other, reduce each others' amounts, so on and so forth. It's brutal. Hopefully they can get an interim fix in place here, and then embark on a longer term 5 to 10 year analysis across all government benefits and services with an eye towards a comprehensive rewrite. There are differing definitions for ans assessments of 'disability' for things like VAC awards, CPP-Disability payments, and the disability tax credit. And we haven't even touched provincial level yet, which in some cases will add another layer. It's a goddamned mess.


----------



## ModlrMike

The short version is that in an attempt to (successfuly) trap the Conservatives, the Liberals screwed vets in the balance. I won't go so far as to claim this was on purpose, more likely the law of unintended consequences at work. None the less, they have an obligation to undo the damage. As I've said elsewhere,  standing on the mound of dirt beside the hole you dug doesn't qualify as occupying the moral high ground.


----------



## Occam

Brihard said:
			
		

> Not surprised. The message has been fired at them loud and clear from the loud/obnoxious parts of the veterans community that there had better be something in this budget, or they will face a political revolt from a group that made a lot of loud and painful noise against the last government. Bear in mind this is also still against the backdrop of the Equitas lawsuit on almost exactly this issue, and which is presently awaiting a court decision that should allow it to go to trial.
> 
> It won't be a reversal to the Pension Act system. That was floated in December 2015 at the VAC stakeholders conference and was almost universally shot down. NVC has a lot of good components; really ONLY the lump sum is hated- the rest offers a lot. We will in all likelihood be seeing a hybrid system that will preserve the bulk of the current benefits, and will enhance monthly payments in order to achieve equity with the Pension Act payments. Some of the usual suspects will piss and moan about 'economic' benefits versus those for 'sacrifice', but thwere it really matters - bottom line dollars in pockets - I believe the government recognizes that post-2006 vets need to:
> - Not be disadvantaged in comparison to the Pension Act;
> - Have every opportunity to go through vocational rehab and education so they can have a meaningful future;
> - Be compensated for the economic impact of restricted career growth (E.g., blown up as a Pte/Cpl instead of retiring as a WO/MWO /Maj)
> - See appropriate comepsnation along similar lines for family members who are stuck being primary caregivers instead of pursuing their own careers.



I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed to read this comment.  Those "loud/obnoxious" parts of the veterans community aren't advocating for a return to the Pension Act.  They're advocating for a return to the *Pension Act Disability Pension* to replace the woefully inequitable Disability Award.  I have not heard of anyone wanting the whole NVC tossed and the Pension Act suite of benefits to be reinstated.  Even the "loud/obnoxious" veterans acknowledge that there are some positives in the NVC that could be even better.

When you say that a return to the Disability Pension was almost universally shot down by the stakeholders in December 2015, it's important to put that into context.  The VAC Policy Advisory Group of stakeholders is comprised of:

Michael Blais, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
Major (Retired) Mark Campbell
Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
Michel Houle, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald
Major-General John Milne
Luc O’Bomsawin, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
Brigadier-General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew
Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion

Out of that group, only one member remains steadfast that the restoration of the Disability Pension is what the government promised during the election, and he remains committed to holding them to that promise.  Despite this lone voice, the Group made some recommendations that completely dodged the issue of the Disability Pension, and dealt with issues that primarily concerned the most disabled veterans.  The group also recommended that no veteran should be any worse off under the NVC than they would have been under the Pension Act - something that is quite impossible to achieve given the delta between the Disability Award and the Disability Pension - but doesn't address exactly how to achieve the state of a NVC veteran (any/all of them) being no worse off than under the Pension Act. I wish I could be more specific about what the Group's recommendations were, but it appears that the Record of Discussion for that meeting is no longer present on the VAC website, so I'm going from memory.

To date, I haven't seen anything from Policy Advisory Group explaining why a return to a Disability Pension was shot down so quickly.  I'm not a strong numbers guy, but my back-of-a-cigarette-pack calculations don't see a return to a Disability Pension as being an undue burden on the government coffers, given that the liability is spread out over decades rather than in one given year for a Disability Award.  Dealing with members who have already received a Disability Award should also be a relatively simple exercise in accounting to switch them back to a pension system.  I have no idea why the Group insists on blurring the lines between compensation for non-economic losses (pain & suffering) and income replacement compensation.  Treat each as a separate benefit, and stop trying to mix them together.  That's what the legal system does.

To me (and to a lot of other veterans, from what I see), the Policy Advisory Group sold us out.  For what, or why, I'm not quite sure - considering that the Liberal election promise focused on a return to disability pensions - and there's only ever been one disability pension to return to.  The Policy Advisory Group only had to recommend that the government keep its promise - it didn't even involve having to bargain for something that hadn't already been promised by the government.

edited to add "almost"


----------



## Rifleman62

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1465981-canadian-veterans-advocacy-blais-removed-from-policy-group

*Canadian Veterans Advocacy: Blais removed from policy group*

ANDREA GUNN OTTAWA BUREAU - May 5, 2017

An outspoken disabled veteran is fuming after what he claims was his unfair removal from a committee that provides guidance to government on policy issues.

Michael Blais, president and founding member of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, was *informed by Veterans Affairs deputy minister General Walt Natynczyk* on Monday he was being sacked from the Veterans Affairs ministerial policy advisory group formed by the Liberal government in 2016 for Facebook posts he made months prior.

During a stakeholders meeting in Ottawa in June and August, Blais, who served as an infantryman for 17 years before a major back injury forced him out of service, said he made several posts on Facebook group he runs for veterans about what happened during the meetings, specifically surrounding discussion on reestablishing lifelong pensions.

In 2006, the New Veterans Charter replaced lifelong pensions for injured and disabled veterans with lump sum payments. During the 2015 election the Liberal government promised to bring back that option for veterans but have, to date, failed to act on this promise.

The 2017 budget reiterates the promise, saying the government will provide an option for injured veterans to receive their disability award though a monthly payment for life, rather than a one-time payment of $360,000, but many argue this still does not bring veterans who retired after 2006 in line with benefits covered by the old pension act.

“Discussions got pretty intense. It was clear I was alone and when they came through with a policy on consensus that didn’t reflect what we had been looking for, which is the equality in recognition of national sacrifice, I said that on Facebook,” Blais told the Chronicle Herald. “Veterans should be aware that other groups that the government has chosen to serve are not reflecting what they want.”

The Facebook post that Blais said got him removed from the committee vaguely references the overall discussion, but doesn’t specifically refer to comments made by any members of the committee.

“We discussed the lump sum award today, once again, there was consensus that the award was sufficient <...> We are the only dissenting position,” it reads in part. “As the ONLY stakeholder at the table, then and now, that fought for equality on this issue, I can tell you there will never be consensus support at the Policy Advisory Group, they do not not support the equality principles the CVA and/or, I suspect, want to use this opportunity to create THEIR version of the life time pension, not one that was promised, not one that we have fought so hard for these past five years without wavering.”

Blais said he was to told Monday that other members of the committee, which include both active and retired military members, as well as representatives of groups like the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada, Veterans UN-NATO Canada, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and the Royal Canadian Legion, felt uncomfortable speaking while he was being so public about the discussions. Blais was not invited to the most recent meeting, which took place on Wednesday, two days after he found out he was being removed.

“I believe every policy advisory group should be full transparency and that every veteran we represent should be fully aware of what’s transpiring at these levels,” he said.

A formal letter received by Blais Friday, signed by the deputy minister, reiterated concerns that other committee members were upset by his Facebook activity and confirms his termination, citing the terms of reference for the committee which state members must respect the “trust and confidentiality” of deliberations and refrain from sharing “privileged/protected information or information of a personal nature.”

“I’m very upset because I never signed any confidentiality regulations nor did we ever speak about any confidentiality regulations,” Blais said “Had there been a confidentiality regulation that would have puzzled me and I would have declined.”

Blais said he feels he was targeted not only for his attempt at transparency, but for being an outspoken advocate and often dissenting from the opinions of others in the group.

A spokesperson for the Department of Veterans Affairs would not comment on specific exchanges between members, but confirmed that the department was formally asked by other members of the ministerial policy advisory group to remove Blais after he had repeatedly violated the terms of reference for the group by posting the contents of their meetings online.

“We value the contribution of all our advisory board members and want to ensure that they are able to engage on these pertinent topics in a safe and confidential environment,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.


----------



## ueo

One wonders just how much the many and varied advocate groups are in support of actual vets? It seems as tho, IMHO, that they talk the talk but lack walking ability or desire. Any others sense this?


----------



## Occam

As someone who has been heavily involved in Canadian Veterans Advocacy (CVA) activities for several years, I'm personally getting a little tired of the lies and innuendo being spread about the organization.

I have personally invested hundreds of hours in direct assistance to veterans who have needed assistance from VAC.  This includes initial applications for disability benefits, encouraging veterans to pursue Departmental Reviews and VRAB appeals through Bureau of Pensions Advocates, and in general providing information about how to deal with VAC and other agencies that provide support that veterans need.  I know many other members of CVA who provide the same support.

I have personally seen the post that Michael Blais made that raised the ire of the other members of the VAC Policy Advisory Group.  The post was made directly to CVA membership, and was not public.  That said, there is absolutely nothing in the post that even remotely violates the confidentiality of "deliberations".  Nobody was mentioned by name.  The details that were revealed such as the fact that the Lump Sum Award (LSA) was discussed, and that the consensus (except Mike Blais) was that the LSA was deemed sufficient should not be privileged information; in fact, the veteran's community at large OUGHT to know what their stakeholder representatives are taking to the table during these discussions.  If the stakeholders were upset that it was revealed that their organization's position was against an increase to the LSA, or a return to a lifetime Disability Pension system, then perhaps they ought to re-evaluate whether they are truly representing the wishes of the members of their organizations.  The terms of reference for the Policy Advisory Group states:



> The work of the Policy Advisory Group will be conducted in a manner that fosters openness, communication, fairness and respect.



If members cannot speak publicly about the positions other organizations are taking for or against various measures, then where is the openness?  The Records of Discussion for the Policy Advisory Group are a joke.  There is little to no detail about any discussion concerning the appropriateness of the amount of the Disability Award, or about any discussion concerning a return to the Disability Pension - only to a pension "option", whatever the hell that is.

Fact of the matter is, Mike Blais has, from the outset, demanded openness and transparency from the Policy Advisory Group.  The other members clearly want to operate in a cloud of secrecy, which raises a huge red flag about exactly what these other veterans group's agendas are.  If the other members of the PAG get their knickers in a bunch over the fact that Mike Blais commented in his post that he was fairly sure someone laughed when he proposed an increase in the LSA to $500K, then Mike Blais isn't the problem - the problem is with the individual who clearly shouldn't have the privilege of speaking on behalf of veterans, and can't conduct him or herself accordingly on discussions of a matter very important to wounded and injured veterans.  Mike Blais has always been completely up-front and open about what position he's taking to the table - the other organizations represented at the PAG cannot say the same.

My personal opinion?  The other members of the PAG complained using a hopelessly weak argument concerning Blais' openness with CVA members to oust a threat to their secretive ways of doing business.  If your veteran's organization can't come to the table with full disclosure about what their agenda is, then you don't belong at the table.


----------



## PuckChaser

Mike Blais picked a political side by jumping on the ABC Vets platform for the last election. He didn't get his way with the Liberals, and is now salty about it. Zero levels of sympathy. A real veteran's advocate would have stayed apolitical, and hit all 3 parties on their record without favouring one or another.


----------



## TCM621

Occam said:
			
		

> As someone who has been heavily involved in Canadian Veterans Advocacy (CVA) activities for several years, I'm personally getting a little tired of the lies and innuendo being spread about the organization.
> 
> I have personally invested hundreds of hours in direct assistance to veterans who have needed assistance from VAC.  This includes initial applications for disability benefits, encouraging veterans to pursue Departmental Reviews and VRAB appeals through Bureau of Pensions Advocates, and in general providing information about how to deal with VAC and other agencies that provide support that veterans need.  I know many other members of CVA who provide the same support.
> 
> I have personally seen the post that Michael Blais made that raised the ire of the other members of the VAC Policy Advisory Group.  The post was made directly to CVA membership, and was not public.  That said, there is absolutely nothing in the post that even remotely violates the confidentiality of "deliberations".  Nobody was mentioned by name.  The details that were revealed such as the fact that the Lump Sum Award (LSA) was discussed, and that the consensus (except Mike Blais) was that the LSA was deemed sufficient should not be privileged information; in fact, the veteran's community at large OUGHT to know what their stakeholder representatives are taking to the table during these discussions.  If the stakeholders were upset that it was revealed that their organization's position was against an increase to the LSA, or a return to a lifetime Disability Pension system, then perhaps they ought to re-evaluate whether they are truly representing the wishes of the members of their organizations.  The terms of reference for the Policy Advisory Group states:
> 
> If members cannot speak publicly about the positions other organizations are taking for or against various measures, then where is the openness?  The Records of Discussion for the Policy Advisory Group are a joke.  There is little to no detail about any discussion concerning the appropriateness of the amount of the Disability Award, or about any discussion concerning a return to the Disability Pension - only to a pension "option", whatever the hell that is.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, Mike Blais has, from the outset, demanded openness and transparency from the Policy Advisory Group.  The other members clearly want to operate in a cloud of secrecy, which raises a huge red flag about exactly what these other veterans group's agendas are.  If the other members of the PAG get their knickers in a bunch over the fact that Mike Blais commented in his post that he was fairly sure someone laughed when he proposed an increase in the LSA to $500K, then Mike Blais isn't the problem - the problem is with the individual who clearly shouldn't have the privilege of speaking on behalf of veterans, and can't conduct him or herself accordingly on discussions of a matter very important to wounded and injured veterans.  Mike Blais has always been completely up-front and open about what position he's taking to the table - the other organizations represented at the PAG cannot say the same.
> 
> My personal opinion?  The other members of the PAG complained using a hopelessly weak argument concerning Blais' openness with CVA members to oust a threat to their secretive ways of doing business.  If your veteran's organization can't come to the table with full disclosure about what their agenda is, then you don't belong at the table.


I can't say this loud enough, the royal Canadian legion does not speak for the majority of veterans and hasn't for years.  There is literally 1 thing that all veterans agree on and that is a return to a true pension option is the right thing to do. A 25 year old with a full sum payout would receive 750 dollars a month to live on  if he took it until he turned 65. That is not taking care of veterans for life. I don't know Mike Blais, but he is 100% in the right on this issue. If any of these other so called veterans advocacy groups don't understand this, they don't speak for veterans. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Mike Blais picked a political side by jumping on the ABC Vets platform for the last election. He didn't get his way with the Liberals, and is now salty about it. Zero levels of sympathy. A real veteran's advocate would have stayed apolitical, and hit all 3 parties on their record without favouring one or another.



Remember those lies and innuendoes I was talking about?  We got one right here.

Mike Blais didn't jump on any platform.  How do I know this?  I'm an admin on their group, and I can personally tell you that myself and the other admins were instructed to delete any political posts or comments during the election period - and we did so.  Tom Beaver (ABC) was told in no uncertain terms not to post anything even remotely related to ABC in the CVA group.  And he didn't.

Mike Blais criticized the governing party - the Conservatives - from inception until election day 2015.  When the Liberals showed signs of reneging on their election promises, he criticized them too.  There was no favoritism shown to any political stripe.

And to speak to the lengths that his detractors will go to smear him - there's a photo circulating of Mike shaking hands and leaning into PM Trudeau to speak into his ear.  Without context, it looks like a hug.  The context that belongs with it is that Mike was leaning in to remind him - for a second time face-to-face - of his promise to restore the Lifetime Disability pension.  Blais posted the photo the day it happened while quoting his words to the PM, and his detractors spread it without the context.  That's pretty shady behaviour from your so-called brothers in arms.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I can't say this loud enough, the royal Canadian legion does not speak for the majority of veterans and hasn't for years.  There is literally 1 thing that all veterans agree on and that is a return to a true pension option is the right thing to do. A 25 year old with a full sum payout would receive 750 dollars a month to live on  if he took it until he turned 65. That is not taking care of veterans for life. I don't know Mike Blais, but he is 100% in the right on this issue. If any of these other so called veterans advocacy groups don't understand this, they don't speak for veterans.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



Perhaps it's time that serving and ex serving members signed a petition to end the use of the RCL as a Veterans Advocate and have their government status removed? After all, they have lost their way and became a civilian club with pseudo uniform and military airs, Their focus seems to be huge gatherings of civie executive at members expense, protecting their useless poppy copyright and jet setting the Dominion Executive (of civies) around the world on junkets, along with their wives, etc. They didn't support us on life long pensions prior or after the NVC. They flip flop to whatever is more popular with the government. It's all about civies and money to them. Our service is only an excuse for them to exist. Time to remove their title.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Where do I sign.


----------



## TCM621

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Where do I sign.


I'm in. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## ueo

Me as well!


----------



## chrisf

Has there been a petition started?

I'm don't have enough expertise to word it, but I'll certainly sign it.


----------



## kratz

I'll sign the petition. 

Sadly, the RCL and government know that serving members are restricted from signing such a petition.


----------



## mariomike

kratz said:
			
		

> Sadly, the RCL and government know that serving members are restricted from signing such a petition.



For reference,

Signing a Petition? Go or No Go? 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/109788/post-1215292.html#msg1215292

19.10 - COMBINATIONS FORBIDDEN is discussed.


----------



## chrisf

kratz said:
			
		

> I'll sign the petition.
> 
> Sadly, the RCL and government know that serving members are restricted from signing such a petition.



Only with regards regulations pertaining to the canadian forces.

This will no doubt set off a lengthy argument about whether the out of date relationship between the legion and the government is related to the Canadian forces or not.

I would guess any petition would have to be written so as to address that directly, but then again.

Im a civilian, as are many (most?) veterans. We can sign what we damned well please.

Alternately, if petitions aren't your thing, you can certainly write your elected representative.

I'm just not clear on exactly what I should be complaining about, except that I don't want the government to be consulting with the local dart and bingo league on matters concerning health care and compensation.


----------



## Occam

kratz said:
			
		

> Sadly, the RCL and government know that serving members are restricted from signing such a petition.





			
				Not a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Only with regards regulations pertaining to the canadian forces.
> 
> This will no doubt set off a lengthy argument about whether the out of date relationship between the legion and the government is related to the Canadian forces or not.
> 
> I would guess any petition would have to be written so as to address that directly, but then again, im a civilian, as are many (most?) veterans. We can sign what we damned well please.



I don't think that issue falls anywhere in a grey area, for a couple of reasons.  The RCL is not mentioned in the NDA.  Even the Legion says it "is a not-for-profit organization funded by membership fees, and operating without government grants or financial assistance from the government for our operations".  How could anyone argue that the issue pertains to regulations concerning the Canadian Forces, when the RCL is at arm's length from government, and membership in the RCL is not mandatory?

If VAC's numbers are correct, there are around 700,000 living veterans in Canada.  Even if you took out serving members, that's still a formidable number.  Couple that with the Legion's claims that fewer than one third of its 270,000 members are veterans.  I think the number of veterans who are fed up with the Legion's ambivalence on the advocacy front is significant.

The above is straying off-topic a little.  But to put it back on track, looking at the current composition of the VAC Policy Advisory Group, at least two out of the nine are RCL members; one is (or was) the Director of the RCL Service Bureau, and the other is the current Dominion Secretary.


----------



## Gunner98

Occam said:
			
		

> Couple that with the Legion's claims that fewer than one third of its 270,000 members are veterans.  I think the number of veterans who are fed up with the Legion's ambivalence on the advocacy front is significant.



Am I right in saying, where things get confusing for non-veterans (i.e., the general public) is that the Pension for Life that many veterans are looking for is in addition to CAF pension and a disability pension, it is a sum of money to supplement those who do not receive a 35-year maximum CAF pension and therefore have a lower income level and cannot work due to health issues.  For me, a $60,000/yr CAF pension and six figure Lump Sum pay-out works fine as I am 50+. I was glad to take advantage (lump-sum) now rather than amassing monthly disability cheques until it was significant. 

I wonder how true their statement, "While the majority of our members (Associates) are civilians, it’s important to note that these individuals are the wives and husbands, the sons and daughters, and the grandchildren of Veterans. They have lived with Veterans and are impacted by the care our Veterans receive. They are intimately connected to Veterans and the issues affecting them." 

The SOHandbook (http://www.legion.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/SOHandbook2013_e.pdf) states that the Service Bureau has been operating since 1926.  Eliminating such an embedded entity will take more than a petition.  I was trying to find a newer statistic but the last one from around 2010 showed that only 25% of retiring veterans accessed Veterans Affairs after their transition interview.


----------



## Occam

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Am I right in saying, where things get confusing for non-veterans (i.e., the general public) is that the Pension for Life that many veterans are looking for is in addition to CAF pension and a disability pension, it is a sum of money to supplement those who do not receive a 35-year maximum CAF pension and therefore have a lower income level and cannot work due to health issues.  For me, a $60,000/yr CAF pension and six figure Lump Sum pay-out works fine as I am 50+. I was glad to take advantage (lump-sum) now rather than amassing monthly disability cheques until it was significant.



For clarity's sake, the Disability Pension that I am referring to is the former Disability Pension awarded under the Pension Act, pre-NVC.  The Disability Pension and Disability Award are meant to compensate for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life - and not income replacement.  The Manuge class action lawsuit proved that VAC Disability Pensions were not income and should not be clawed back against SISIP-LTD benefits.

The two pensions you refer to above in yellow are one and the same.  Comparing the Pension Act and NVC benefits is a pain in the rear sometimes.  Using your scenario under the Pension Act, sure, you could be in receipt of a $60K/yr CFSA pension, and be eligible for a monthly Disability Pension as well.  However, it's possible there are also three year 1-hook Ptes who are getting $3K/yr CFSA pensions (assuming they qualify for CPP Disability, otherwise they have to wait until age 60 to start drawing CFSA), plus a Disability Pension.  You have to use apples to apples when comparing benefits between Pension Act and NVC.  

The lump sum Disability Award is great for older veterans, who are more likely to be better off financially, with small or no mortgages, and CFSA pension income.  It also works in their favour that because they're older, they would receive fewer Disability Pension payments, so having the money "up front" as a lump sum is advantageous to them.

However, for the younger veteran, who may not be eligible for much of a CFSA pension (if any, due to the CPP Disability rule for getting the CFSA pension before 60), and who is less likely to be well-positioned in life to be financially independent, the Disability Award falls way short of the Disability Pension.

Some of the enhancements made to the NVC have closed the gap for the more seriously injured veterans.  However, there's a huge inequity for mildly to moderately injured veterans when comparing the Disability Award and Disability Pension.  Remember that I'm talking about compensation for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life - not income replacement.

Using myself as an example - I have a 16% disability that was granted under the Pension Act.  I was awarded it when I was 40 years old.  Assuming I live to be 80, that means I will have been given approximately $240K in monthly disability pension payments, not counting annual CPI adjustments to the pension.  I also have a 10% disability under the NVC, and with the initial award and the recent top-up combined, it amounted to a lump sum payout of about $35K.  To compare apples to apples, a 16% rating under the NVC would have been a lump sum of about $57.6K.  That is a HUGE difference in pain and suffering compensation.  Why is my more recent disability worth so much less compensation than my first one?

The VAC Policy Advisory Group recommended some changes that benefit severely injured veterans, which is great.  However, like the Legion, they are against a return to a monthly disability pension, and appear poised to let the government off the hook for their election promise.  The Liberal election promise was "re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans".  I think that has a very clear meaning to veterans who know about the Pension Act - there is only one Pension to "re-establish", and that was the Pension Act pension.  Now it turns out that the government is exploring a "lifetime pension option", but it is based on the amount of the Disability Award.  Well, we already have that - you can take your Disability Award divided up into as many months as you like, but you won't get any more money.  Smoke and mirrors.


----------



## cowboy628

So! Isn't the Judge making some ruling in BC!!!


----------



## Occam

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> So! Isn't the Judge making some ruling in BC!!!



Eventually...on the government's appeal to have the case dismissed.


----------



## cowboy628

So we wait, wait, wait and wait. The whole process is rigged. Govt always gets what it wants. All the decision makers are Civi's. We lose. Can Hardly wait next election not that it would matter.


----------



## PuckChaser

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> So we wait, wait, wait and wait. The whole process is rigged. Govt always gets what it wants. All the decision makers are Civi's. We lose. Can Hardly wait next election not that it would matter.



Much like Marc Garneau stated Canadians need to know what the actual costs of defense are, so to do they need to know what the actual costs of taking care of our wounded are. That care involves lifetime pensions at a similar pre-release salary.


----------



## Occam

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Much like Marc Garneau stated Canadians need to know what the actual costs of defense are, so to do they need to know what the actual costs of taking care of our wounded are. That care involves lifetime pensions at a similar pre-release salary.



Neither the Pension Act Disability Pension nor any likely future abomination have been tied to salary at release.  The old Disability Pension was based entirely upon degree of disability and degree of attribution to military service.

Now income replacement benefits, like ELB, I believe are tied to the rank on release.


----------



## TCM621

Occam said:
			
		

> For clarity's sake, the Disability Pension that I am referring to is the former Disability Pension awarded under the Pension Act, pre-NVC.  The Disability Pension and Disability Award are meant to compensate for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life - and not income replacement.  The Manuge class action lawsuit proved that VAC Disability Pensions were not income and should not be clawed back against SISIP-LTD benefits.
> 
> The two pensions you refer to above in yellow are one and the same.  Comparing the Pension Act and NVC benefits is a pain in the rear sometimes.  Using your scenario under the Pension Act, sure, you could be in receipt of a $60K/yr CFSA pension, and be eligible for a monthly Disability Pension as well.  However, it's possible there are also three year 1-hook Ptes who are getting $3K/yr CFSA pensions (assuming they qualify for CPP Disability, otherwise they have to wait until age 60 to start drawing CFSA), plus a Disability Pension.  You have to use apples to apples when comparing benefits between Pension Act and NVC.
> 
> The lump sum Disability Award is great for older veterans, who are more likely to be better off financially, with small or no mortgages, and CFSA pension income.  It also works in their favour that because they're older, they would receive fewer Disability Pension payments, so having the money "up front" as a lump sum is advantageous to them.
> 
> However, for the younger veteran, who may not be eligible for much of a CFSA pension (if any, due to the CPP Disability rule for getting the CFSA pension before 60), and who is less likely to be well-positioned in life to be financially independent, the Disability Award falls way short of the Disability Pension.
> 
> Some of the enhancements made to the NVC have closed the gap for the more seriously injured veterans.  However, there's a huge inequity for mildly to moderately injured veterans when comparing the Disability Award and Disability Pension.  Remember that I'm talking about compensation for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life - not income replacement.
> 
> Using myself as an example - I have a 16% disability that was granted under the Pension Act.  I was awarded it when I was 40 years old.  Assuming I live to be 80, that means I will have been given approximately $240K in monthly disability pension payments, not counting annual CPI adjustments to the pension.  I also have a 10% disability under the NVC, and with the initial award and the recent top-up combined, it amounted to a lump sum payout of about $35K.  To compare apples to apples, a 16% rating under the NVC would have been a lump sum of about $57.6K.  That is a HUGE difference in pain and suffering compensation.  Why is my more recent disability worth so much less compensation than my first one?
> 
> The VAC Policy Advisory Group recommended some changes that benefit severely injured veterans, which is great.  However, like the Legion, they are against a return to a monthly disability pension, and appear poised to let the government off the hook for their election promise.  The Liberal election promise was "re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans".  I think that has a very clear meaning to veterans who know about the Pension Act - there is only one Pension to "re-establish", and that was the Pension Act pension.  Now it turns out that the government is exploring a "lifetime pension option", but it is based on the amount of the Disability Award.  Well, we already have that - you can take your Disability Award divided up into as many months as you like, but you won't get any more money.  Smoke and mirrors.


The pain and suffering is definitely what is missing from the NVC. I am in a great deal of pain but actually pretty mobile considering all my injuries. I am in the middle of a shoulder claim and while I have reduced range of motion, the the real problem is that I am in pain every day, have trouble falling asleep most night and can't sleep all together some nights. The effects of pain on cognition are pretty well studied but we don't account for the detrimental effects it has and will continue to have for life. I got 10% for my knee but a strong case could be made for the fact that is cost me many times that in lost future earnings (long story) not to mention the mental anguish of having your career held up for years with no hope for advancement. 



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## The Bread Guy

Still waiting ...


> A group that advises Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr on policy issues has fired a warning shot over the Liberal government's plan to offer wounded veterans the "option" of lifetime pensions, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The panel, consisting of former soldiers and advocates, says the long-awaited overhaul must not be a simple redistribution of money that's already available.
> 
> (...)
> 
> _*The policy advisory group, which has acted as Hehr's sounding board, is getting signals that the Liberals mean to simply take the lump sum award and divide it into monthly payments.*_
> 
> In a May 12 letter, the panel warned that such a scheme "does not provide the lifetime financial security" that veterans were expecting from the Liberal campaign promise.
> 
> (...)
> 
> At the time of the budget, a senior government official speaking on background said the intention is to roll out the revised pension plan later this year and issue cheques to veterans by 2018 — a year ahead of the next election call.
> 
> The new plan, however, "would not seek parity with the old pension act," that pre-dates the Conservative changes, the official told CBC News last spring.
> 
> At the same time, the letter to Hehr expressed frustration that the advisory panel's recommendations were being ignored and "deliberately pushed down the line for further review and evaluation."
> 
> Specifically, the advisers pointed to their October 2016 report, delivered to Veterans Affairs, which suggested rolling a suite of already existing benefits and entitlements, including the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance and Attendance Allowance, into "a single stream of income for life." ...


Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Still waiting ...Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice ...



Sure, why not?  They're pushing all their other commitments off the to the right and saving themselves a ton of money too boot.  Just like them to screw the guys further.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

:facepalm:


----------



## Lightguns

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Still waiting ...Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice ...



Except they were not Conservative changes.  NVC was a liberal plan and they still cannot own it.  That is how far apart we are on this issue, they are still playing the blame game.  This is issue will never be resolved until there is an earnest outcry by a large majority of Canucks.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Except they were not Conservative changes.  NVC was a liberal plan and they still cannot own it.  That is how far apart we are on this issue, they are still playing the blame game ...


Since your laying a touch of blame there, there's a case to be made that Team Blue voted unanimously for it, had a chance to fix it (even with a majority government), and didn't, so they wear it from the last round.  Now, Team Red can fix it - with a majority of their own - but they're not ... 


			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... This is issue will never be resolved until there is an earnest outcry by a large majority of Canucks.


Sadly ... #LikelyCostsTooMuch  #SupportAMileWideAndAnInchDeep


----------



## brihard

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Still waiting ...Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice ...



For interest's sake, here are the current members of the policy advisory group.

Major (Retired) Mark Campbell
Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
Michel Houle, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald
Major-General John Milne
Luc O’Bomsawin, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
Brigadier-General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew
Colonel (Retired) Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion


----------



## TCM621

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Since your laying a touch of blame there, there's a case to be made that Team Blue voted unanimously for it, had a chance to fix it (even with a majority government), and didn't, so they wear it from the last round.  Now, Team Red can fix it - with a majority of their own - but they're not ... Sadly ... #LikelyCostsTooMuch  #SupportAMileWideAndAnInchDeep


If there is one issue in Canada that is truly bi-partisan it is lack of support for the military.


----------



## Lightguns

Brihard said:
			
		

> For interest's sake, here are the current members of the policy advisory group.
> 
> Major (Retired) Mark Campbell
> Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
> Michel Houle, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
> Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald
> Major-General John Milne
> Luc O’Bomsawin, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
> Brigadier-General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
> Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew
> Colonel (Retired) Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion



So Canadian Veterans Advocacy is out?  I tend to view them as hyper Liberals along with ABC Veterans.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Brihard said:
			
		

> For interest's sake, here are the current members of the policy advisory group.
> 
> Major (Retired) Mark Campbell
> Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
> Michel Houle, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
> Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald
> Major-General John Milne
> Luc O’Bomsawin, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
> Brigadier-General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
> Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew
> Colonel (Retired) Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion



I wonder where all the Corporals, Master Seamen, and Leading Air Craftsmen are.


----------



## Occam

Lightguns said:
			
		

> So Canadian Veterans Advocacy is out?  I tend to view them as hyper Liberals along with ABC Veterans.



Your view would be inaccurate.  There are just as many people following CVA who are upset with the current government reneging on the re-establishment of the disability pension as there were upset with the previous government for not doing anything about it.  CVA doesn't care what colour of party is in power, only that they restore us to "one veteran, one standard".

Mike Blais (CVA) was indeed removed from the Policy Advisory Group, at the request of the other members.



> Blais said he was to told Monday that other members of the committee, which include both active and retired military members, as well as representatives of groups like the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada, Veterans UN-NATO Canada, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and the Royal Canadian Legion, felt uncomfortable speaking while he was being so public about the discussions. Blais was not invited to the most recent meeting, which took place on Wednesday, two days after he found out he was being removed.
> 
> “I believe every policy advisory group should be full transparency and that every veteran we represent should be fully aware of what’s transpiring at these levels,” he said.
> 
> A formal letter received by Blais Friday, signed by the deputy minister, reiterated concerns that other committee members were upset by his Facebook activity and confirms his termination, citing the terms of reference for the committee which state members must respect the “trust and confidentiality” of deliberations and refrain from sharing “privileged/protected information or information of a personal nature.”



There are some shenanigans going on with this Policy Advisory Group.  The lone member of the group advocating for the re-establishment of the lifetime disability pension, removed...because he shared this with the CVA Facebook group:



> “We discussed the lump sum award today, once again, there was consensus that the award was sufficient <...> We are the only dissenting position,” it reads in part. “As the ONLY stakeholder at the table, then and now, that fought for equality on this issue, I can tell you there will never be consensus support at the Policy Advisory Group, they do not not support the equality principles the CVA and/or, I suspect, want to use this opportunity to create THEIR version of the life time pension, not one that was promised, not one that we have fought so hard for these past five years without wavering.”



Interesting.  Apparently revealing that the lot of them save for one is against re-establishment of the disability pension is "privileged/protected information".  I wonder if the rank and file of these organizations realize what their representatives are actually advocating for.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I wonder where all the Corporals, Master Seamen, and Leading Air Craftsmen are.



That is a damned fine question.


----------



## dimsum

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wonder where all the Corporals, Master Seamen, and *Leading Air Craftsmen* are.



I suspect anyone who was an LAC in the RCAF has long since retired.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I spoke with Mike Blaise while we were sharing drinks in Ottawa. Hehr made a big deal about being open and transparent. Mike took him at his word. When asked what was going on, he told those that were asking exactly the truth about what was being discussed and the direction the policy board was taking us.

Apparently, members of the committee got upset that Mike was talking outside of class and telling us who was really supporting us and, more importantly, who wasn't backing us. The official story is the remaining committee members went to Hehr and said they didn't want to be taking heat because Mike was being open and transparent. Just like Hehr said they were.(but obviously aren't).


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I suspect anyone who was an LAC in the RCAF has long since retired.



Obviously. I'm also pretty darn sure there's more than a few out there collecting VAC pensions. So why would they not deserve a seat at the table. Not sure what your point was.

It doesn't change the fact that a corporal living on disability has no input, but the guys with big honking pensions, high paying consulting jobs, tons of connections, etc get to decide, as it ever was, what the corporal will get and he'll damn well like it.

I think it's criminal, but not unexpected


----------



## Occam

Yup.  Full disclosure:  I've been an admin on the CVA FB group for a couple of years, and have been active with them for five years.  Mike's story hasn't changed one bit - re-establish the Disability Pension.  That's it.

After Mike told us about his phone call with Natynczyk where he was informed of his removal, I had an ATI request filed within 15 minutes with VAC.  Subject: requesting release of all documentation regarding Mike's removal from the Policy Advisory Group, including the letter sent from the other members of the Group to the Deputy Minister requesting Blais' removal.  I'm anxious to find out how much of it is redacted because it's "privileged/protected".   >

Have a gander at the Records of Discussion of the group.  Have you ever seen anything so devoid of details with regard to the re-establishment of the Disability Pension, not to mention the other topics?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> It doesn't change the fact that a corporal living on disability has no input, but the guys with big honking pensions, high paying consulting jobs, tons of connections, etc get to decide, as it ever was, what the corporal will get and he'll damn well like it.



Or worse, a corporal living on a *lump sum* and trying to jump through the ELB, CIA, and all the other hoops just to try to make ends meet.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Yeah, _that's_ what's needed - more patience ...


> Canada’s veterans affairs minister is urging patience from injured ex-soldiers growing frustrated waiting for a government plan that would give them pensions for life.
> 
> The Liberal government promised in the budget it would announce plans by the end of this year for the option of life-long pensions for those injured in uniform.
> 
> The Liberals were the only party to promise to re-introduce the pensions, which were replaced by a lump-sum payment, career training and targeted income-replacement programs in 2006.
> 
> “We’re committed to a pension-for-life option for our veterans,” Kent Hehr, minister of veterans affairs and associate minister of national defence, said in an interview with the Canadian Press Monday. “They’ve asked for this. We’ve committed to this.”
> 
> Hehr declined to discuss what progress has been made so far but said he understands why many injured Canadian Armed Forces members are frustrated by the delay.
> 
> “They really deserve our support,” Hehr said. “When they leave the military as the result of illness or injury, that is tremendously hard and they’ve had to take off that jersey for the last time ...


:waiting:


----------



## Lightguns

Occam said:
			
		

> Your view would be inaccurate.  There are just as many people following CVA who are upset with the current government reneging on the re-establishment of the disability pension as there were upset with the previous government for not doing anything about it.  CVA doesn't care what colour of party is in power, only that they restore us to "one veteran, one standard".
> 
> Mike Blais (CVA) was indeed removed from the Policy Advisory Group, at the request of the other members.
> 
> There are some shenanigans going on with this Policy Advisory Group.  The lone member of the group advocating for the re-establishment of the lifetime disability pension, removed...because he shared this with the CVA Facebook group:
> 
> Interesting.  Apparently revealing that the lot of them save for one is against re-establishment of the disability pension is "privileged/protected information".  I wonder if the rank and file of these organizations realize what their representatives are actually advocating for.
> 
> That is a damned fine question.



I wonder if the Legion can survive another veterans back stabbing media storm?


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I wonder if the Legion can survive another veterans back stabbing media storm?



Sooner people stop pretending the legion is at all relevant to anyone under the age of 70 the sooner that relic can die and we can focus on establishing organization run by actual military veterans/serving military. Right now that space is occupied by a civilian's social club masquerading like they advocate for us. 

Now I'll wait while the 7 people with actual military time who joined the legion in the last 20 years object to what I said.


----------



## Wookilar

I just had a quite lengthy conversation last week about this issue. The discussion began with my concerns about how the current government is deciding to deal with certain lawsuits (wrt to which ones to settle and which ones to fight) and developed into many things VAC & 3B release.

I understand that any settlement with us regarding a pension of any kind is going to cost into the billions of $$ going forward but a settlement of a few million $$ is much easier to swallow. Hell, I've spent nearly that much on gravel in a 4 year period (do you have any idea how much gravel a swamp in Gagetown can swallow??  ;D).

I was guaranteed that the delay is due solely to the complications based in the language of the various pieces of legislation that are intertwined together. It was also admitted to me that the money issue is a reality that must be dealt with somehow.

Note that I was not told that a "pension for life" was going to be the same as those done under the old Pension Act. However, I don't think it is wrong to state that it's not as simple as simply bringing back a medical pension based on % of injury as determined by VAC.

With ELB being raised to 90%, how does that impact any future pension? Let alone the other aspects of the NVC that provide a suite of benefits that never existed before? All of those services have a dollar amount that is part of the "compensation" package. When does VAC Voc Rehab end? When a job is found? When my income reaches 66 1/2% of my pre-release income? Which is still on the books by the way.

Lots of questions, not many answers. I don't know what anything is going to look like when they finally bring it forward, but I certainly do share the concerns about the advisory boards that there was too much emphasis on policy development experience and not enough on "real-life" experience in dealing with these very complex admin issues.


----------



## PuckChaser

Details are starting to leak, and since its not quite related to Equitas I figured it needed its own topic.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-to-unveil-lifetime-pensions-next-week-but-veterans-say-amounts-too-low/article37325015/



> Liberals to unveil lifetime pensions next week, but veterans say amounts too low
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> OTTAWA
> PUBLISHED DECEMBER 14, 2017
> 
> The federal government is preparing to offer disabled veterans who retired in the past 12 years the lifetime pensions they have demanded but the amounts being discussed are far lower than what is given to those who left the Canadian Forces before 2006.
> 
> A source says Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O'Regan will announce next Tuesday that veterans who fall under the New Veterans Charter will be entitled to receive lifetime pensions of up to $1,200 a month. Sources say those payments will kick in in 2019.
> 
> A spokesman for Mr. O'Regan said Thursday that neither the date of the announcement nor the amount of the pensions has been decided. But the numbers, which originate with a government official, are now floating around the veterans community.
> 
> Newer veterans, including those who served in Afghanistan, have complained for years that the veterans who retired before 2006 received a superior compensation package to those who retired after the New Veterans Charter, which was approved by all parties in the House of Commons and implemented under the Conservative government, became law.
> 
> While the old Pension Act provided lifetime pensions, which now amount to more than $2,700 a month for qualified veterans, the charter was based primarily on lump-sum payments plus other benefits that vary according to the degree of disability and the toll it has taken on the veteran and his family.
> 
> The Liberals campaigned in the 2015 election on a promise to reinstate the lifetime pensions but doing so has proved to be more difficult and costly than anticipated. If the announcement takes place next week, it will have taken more than two years since the vote that brought Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to office for the pension promise to be kept.



Only with Exceptional Incapacity Allowance does the pension amount go above the old Pension Act rate, and that individual would have to be at EIA Grade 1 (highest level currently at $1447 a month). If not eligible for EIA, the new pension is $874K (same 60 year life expenctancy) vs $1.944M for the Pension Act. You'd have to add in the $360K payout, but its not indexed for inflation so its effect is quickly reduced over the years.

I for one, am super excited for my $120 a month.  :


----------



## jollyjacktar

But what if you've already had a lump sum payout?


----------



## BDTyre

That's what I've been wondering. I'm sure others have asked but the government seems be avoiding any official statement.

Would a monthly pension be pro-rated? Maybe have a delayed effective date?



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But what if you've already had a lump sum payout?


----------



## PuckChaser

We'll have to wait for the details. I have a feeling that whatever they can do to save money will be done. Apparently Equitas already declined a $1400 a month pension as too low a few months ago.


----------



## Rifleman62

They will need a platoon of Actuaries to convert a cash payout received under the new act, add the bump last year, convert to lifetime pension using Life Tables, deduct the cash received to date as a monthly payments = the start date of a new lifetime pension. 

As like the Reserve Pension, they will probably use two different Life Tables: one for RegF and one for ResF. It didn't make sence for the RFPP, so VAC will probably do it.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/pdf/services/disability-pension/Disability-Pension-Rates-2017.pdf

Under the old Act, eff 1 Jan 17, max (100% disabled) monthly Single - $2,733; Married - $3417; Married, two dependants - $4032.


----------



## 57Chevy

If you got a payout, then probably no pension, especially the old vets.

I'm still happy with my 276$ each month anyway.


----------



## Teager

Rumour mill is fully loaded have heard multiple  things. One thing that does concern me is I've heard that the Legion has given there blessing for whatever VAC has cooked up. If any of this has any merit I don't know but if it does it feels like history would be repeating itself with VAC and the Legion giving it's support.


----------



## Rifleman62

Question, if rumor is correct: Who did the RCL consult before giving it's approval? If true, and the LPP (Lifetime Pension Program) is crap, then it's time all the Vets, under the new Act. to rip the RCL a new cake hole, resoundingly in every way possible.

I don't think these guys  http://www.legion.ca/who-we-are/our-members/our-executive   have enough military experience to represent anyone.


----------



## brihard

The dollar value will matter less than how a pension option would stack on top of other benefits like ELB, CIA, RISB, etc. If the new pension amount is applied on top of those benefits and does not reduce them, then I suspect we'll see a formula where pretty much everyone will be much better served under the NVC than they were under the Pension Act. If, however, the medical pension amount deducts from ELB, RISB, etc, then it will be situation no change.

As it stands the 90% ELB is a pretty damned good benefit for those who qualify. CAF salaries have risen considerably from the old days. The pension act disability pensions even for married with a couple of kids don't stack up against SNCO or officer pay, and you have to have a pretty high disability % even for it to beat out 90% of a cpl's pay. If you aren't a Private, or 98%+ disabled, or still able to work and make a pretty good income, then in most cases the monthly total from NVC benefits beat out the Pension Act in a case by case comparison. Unfortunately it only does so after a fair bit of math, which makes it difficult to show pissed off veterans with short attention spans how the number stack up in a lot of cases.

The goal needs to be a combination of 'nobody ends up worse off than they would have been under Pension Act' along with 'those who have viable prospects of rehabilitation through education and vocational training get access to them and a chance at a new career'. We SHOULD be trying to make injured vets serviceable in the workforce again if they are able to do it. The Pension Act basically paid them to shut up, go away, drink, and die and not to trouble VAC in the meantime.

Unfortunately, I suspect this will be implemented basically as another layer of band-aid on top of the other existing benefits. The whole system needs to be re-written from the ground up on a first-principles basis and incorporating everything we've learned about the modern needs of veterans, and the possibility than in short order we could unexpectedly end up in a brisk fight resulting in thousands of young, injured vets who still want to live a meaningful life.


----------



## Rifleman62

Don't forget the it is tax free.


----------



## brihard

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Don't forget the it is tax free.



I have not forgotten that. It adds to the value somewhat, to be sure. The big question though is if it will offset and reduce ELB and RISB.


----------



## Occam

It still doesn't address the disparity for the majority of veterans who are not severely injured and for whom ELB and CIA are not even on the radar:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

So now that we have dissected the rumours about the announcement, it will be interesting to see the announcement itself....


----------



## Occam

Well, playing the Devil's Advocate; if they were re-establishing the Pension Act pension, I have no doubt in my military mind that they would have had a massive press conference while the House of Commons was still sitting to announce it.

The House adjourned for the Christmas break yesterday, and won't resume until January 29th.

Wherever the Minister makes his announcement next week, it's a safe bet that you'd be able to fire a cannonball down the hallway and not hit anyone.


----------



## PuckChaser

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So now that we have dissected the rumours about the announcement, it will be interesting to see the announcement itself....



I don't think you're naive enough to believe it's going to be a blockbuster day for veterans when the announcement is hidden after the Commons is adjourned for the winter and sometime on the week before Christmas when most Canadians are worried about what Boxing Day deals are going to be coming out soon.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I am a lot of things - naive is not one of them.

I would just rather discuss the policy, rather than what people think the policy may be.


----------



## Teager

> The Liberal government's plan to give wounded ex-soldiers "the option" of a lifetime pension will be a complicated two-part rejigging of the current system, CBC News has learned.
> 
> A series of sources with knowledge of the file say the first component involves recognizing the pain and suffering of injuries with either the existing lump sum award, or a monthly tax-free payment to a maximum of $1,200 per month.
> 
> The second component is a "bundling of existing benefits" already available under the often-maligned New Veterans Charter.
> 
> The plan, to be released on Tuesday — a week after the House of Commons recess — has been two years in the making.
> 
> 
> New veterans more likely to have hard time adjusting to civilian life: survey
> The veterans community was awash with rumours Thursday after some advocates had background conversations with senior veterans affairs officials.
> 
> Changes to the system are not expected to come into effect until 2019, said the sources who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the file.
> 
> A spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O'Regan said the government is committed to delivering on its promise, but would not talk about any details.
> 
> "We remain committed to a lifelong benefit option for ill and injured veterans," said Alex Wellstead. "Options and numbers are not nailed down."
> 
> The plan will likely not reduce the political heat from veterans groups who have, since the 2015 election, been expecting a major overhaul and a return to what they perceive is a more generous regime.
> 
> No parity with previous regime
> 
> At the heart of their dissatisfaction was the switch in 2006 away from lifetime pensions for wounds sustained in the line of duty towards a system of lump sum payments with a maximum expenditure of $376,000.
> 
> That will not change, the sources said, and the Liberal plan for monthly payments represents the maximum "amortized over time" at the discretion of injured veteran, up to the age of 80.
> 
> A policy group that advised former veterans minister Kent Hehr warned him last spring not to go down the road of amortizing the existing benefit.
> 
> 
> 'Liberals have let us down,' says frustrated vet awaiting pension decision
> The average pain and suffering award is $43,000, according to Veterans Affairs Canada documents obtained by CBC News under access to information legislation.
> 
> That means very few wounded soldiers would ever see the entire $1,200 per month payment which will be touted next week.
> 
> Under the old pension act severely wounded soldiers would have received up $2,700 per month, but Liberal government sources have long said that their changes "would not seek parity" with the previous system.
> 
> Call to end clawbacks
> 
> It is that disparity that was at the heart of the class action lawsuit by veterans of the Afghan war — a case that was recently thrown out by the B.C. Court of Appeal.
> 
> The ex-soldiers claimed they were being discriminated against because the changes were introduced halfway through the war — creating a situation where troops injured in the same conflict at different times would get different benefits.
> 
> The Liberals, in the last election, promised to change that by giving soldiers the option of a lump sum or a lifetime pension.
> 
> 
> Cooperation with government isn't working. Veterans need to start making noise
> One of the people involved the court case said the changes the government is about to make need to meet a simple test in order to satisfy aggrieved ex-soldiers.
> 
> "The bar the government has to meet is parity with the pension act in terms of the net dollars in a veteran's pocket every month," said retired major Mark Campbell, who had both legs blown off in Afghanistan in a booby-trapped ditch.
> 
> "It can only be a real pension if the benefits are tax free and if there is no clawback of their military pension as part of the disability payment."
> 
> 'Bundling of existing benefits'
> 
> The government has repeatedly argued that the new system is just as generous when one takes into account taxable entitlements such as the earnings loss benefit and the permanent impairment allowance.
> 
> But Campbell said what doesn't get mentioned is the pension clawback, which is "huge" for veterans.
> 
> Veterans have complained that that portion of the system is mind-boggling in its complexity and next week's changes are expected to address that by the "bundling of existing benefits."
> 
> The Trudeau government signalled in last spring's budget that it would have something to say before the end of the year on the issue of veterans pensions.
> 
> It has already put an estimated $6.3 billion put into improved veterans services, including the reopening of nine regional offices shuttered by the previous government; and the rehiring of both claims processing staff and case managers at Veterans Affairs.



http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/vets-pension-fight-1.4449710


----------



## PuckChaser

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I am a lot of things - naive is not one of them.
> 
> I would just rather discuss the policy, rather than what people think the policy may be.



Feel free to check in next week, then. I'm 99.99% sure you're not being forced against your will to read people's speculation. If you are, blink twice and I'll call the appropriate authorities.


----------



## jollyjacktar

;D


----------



## McG

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I would just rather discuss the policy, rather than what people think the policy may be.


That’s crazy talk. It is so much easier to form a strawman, get worked up about imagined faults, and come to emotional & inflexible opinions if one conducts the analysis before any facts are available.


----------



## slayer/raptor

Why would this only apply to retired vets? What about current serving members who were injured and received a disability award?


----------



## Teager

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Why would this only apply to retired vets? What about current serving members who were injured and received a disability award?



There's 2 components to this one being the pension the other is bundling the other benefits. Now it is unknown if the pension that is being talked about will be an option for those that already got a lump sum or if it will be a go forward only option.

Not sure what they intend on doing with the bundling of benefits but those benefits are usually for those no longer serving and/or can't work.


----------



## brihard

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Why would this only apply to retired vets? What about current serving members who were injured and received a disability award?



It should apply as do current disability awards - anyone who has a rated disability from VAC and has been issued an award as a result. There are plenty of serving members who have received lump sums, are receiving pensions, or both.

The disability pension was basically a combined economic and non-economic compensation - it was intended to compensate both for lost income, and for the 'suck' of being disabled.

With NVC those two components got split. Economic: ELB and PIA (later CIA) and after retirement RISB to offset lost income and increased costs of disability. Non-economic: "Sucks you're disabled; here's cash" the Disability Award and more recently the horrendously flawed Critical Injury Benefit. It's a dogs breakfast of acronyms and benefits, some of which overlap, some of which don't.

Adding a monthly amount on topof what already exists - IF it stacks and isn't taxed - will put nearly everyone in a better position that pure pension act would have. There will likely be one remaining exception: Those who receive a disability, but who do not qualify for ELB either due to succesfully transitioning into a new job, or not having been medically released. Previously you could get say a 20% disability, but if you could stay in the CAF or get other work, you would still receive your full pay AND you would get the added amount of the disability pension. In effect the disability pension would at that point become purely compensatory, rather than a blend of compensatory and income replacement.

The end effect of the NVC in splitting off these two components is this: There is now a definite dollar value specifically and only for the pain and suffering. The disability award or pending disability pension are purely to compensate for the crappiness of being disabled. The income replacement is handled separately through ELB. And overall that's actually not a bad way to do it If the numbers are fair and reasonable. The problem is that it is so easily contrasted with the old system, where with much less of a bureaucratic fight for numerous different benefits one would receive a steady and predictable dollar value from a much more straightforward benefits scheme, and if you had to live off of it you could.

So now we have a system where those who are injured but still work gainfully receive less than under the original system. Realistically I don't see that being changed unless they were to fundamentally alter how ELB works and deduct the disability pension from it. I think that would be a non-starter, even though it might actually make the most sense and come closest to an improved version of the old system. So I think we're going to see another half-measures band aid layer.


----------



## Rifleman62

Government of Canada to announce Pension for Life for Veterans
Media Advisory
From Veterans Affairs Canada

Ottawa – The Honourable Seamus O’Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence and Sherry Romanado, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, will announce details about the Government of Canada’s commitment to provide a pension for life for Veterans.

Media are invited to attend a technical briefing and the official announcement.

Technical Media Briefing
Location:    National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) – Multimedia Centre

Date:          Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Time:          9:45 a.m. – Arrive at NDHQ

(EST)           9:50 a.m. – Registration

                   10 a.m. – Technical brief with subject-matter experts

Subject-matter experts will include:

Faith McIntyre, DG, Policy and Research, Veterans Affairs Canada
Paul Thomson, DG, Service Delivery Transformation, Veterans Affairs Canada

Official Announcement
Location:    National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) – Multimedia Centre

Date:          Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Time:          11 a.m.(EST)

Spokespersons will include:

The Honourable Seamus O’Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence
Sherry Romanado, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
General (Retired) Walter Natynczk, Deputy Minister, Veterans Affairs Canada

Watch the announcement on Facebook Live: https://www.facebook.com/VeteransAffairsCanada/


----------



## Strike

I've had the news on all day and not a thing has been mentioned.  And nothing on my feeds.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Media are invited to attend a technical briefing and the official announcement.
> 
> Technical Media Briefing
> Location:    National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) – Multimedia Centre
> 
> Date:          Wednesday, December 20, 2017
> 
> Time:          9:45 a.m. – Arrive at NDHQ
> 
> (EST)           9:50 a.m. – Registration
> 
> 10 a.m. – Technical brief with subject-matter experts



You're just early a wee bit... ;D


----------



## Strike

That answers my question. lol

I thought they were planning on announcing on Tuesday originally.


----------



## Rifleman62

Posted the press release for info as many are waiting for details. I knew the announcement, as stated in the PR, was tomorrow vice previously speculated for today.


----------



## Rifleman62

If you are having problems viewing https://www.facebook.com/pg/VeteransAffairsCanada/videos/?ref=page_internal

Click on "Live".


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pension-for-life


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.canada.ca/en/veterans-affairs-canada/news/2017/12/government_of_canadaannounceapensionforlifeforveterans.html

*Government of Canada announce a Pension for Life for Veterans*
News Release
From Veterans Affairs Canada

December 20, 2017 – Ottawa – Veterans Affairs Canada

The Government of Canada is committed to supporting Canada’s Veterans and their families. Canada owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the men and women who have served in uniform and it is our responsibility to ensure that they have access to the resources they need.

Today, the Honourable Seamus O’Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence unveiled the Government’s Pension for Life plan. This monthly payment for life will reduce the complexity of support programs available to Veterans and their families. It will provide holistic benefits, including financial stability, for Canada’s Veterans, with a particular focus on those most disabled.

The Pension for Life plan has three key pillars:

monthly, tax-free financial compensation, with the choice of monthly payments for life, to recognize pain and suffering caused by a service-related disability with a maximum monthly amount of $2,650 for those most severely disabled with barriers to re-establishment;

income replacement for Veterans who are experiencing barriers returning to work after military service at 90% of their pre-release salary. In some circumstances Veterans may be eligible for an additional 1% career progression factor each year; and, 

services and benefits to help Veterans in a wide-range of areas, including education, employment and physical and mental health.
These new elements represent an additional investment of close to $3.6 billion to support Canada’s Veterans. When combined with well-being programs already announced in previous budgets, the Government of Canada’s investments since 2016 add up to nearly $10 billion. These investments will help Veterans and their families as they transition to civilian life.

Quotes
“Our Pension for Life plan is a combination of benefits that provide recognition, income support and stability to Veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members who experience a service-related illness or injury. We are addressing concerns made by the Veteran and military communities by allowing those with a service-related injury or illness to determine the best form of compensation that works for them and their families. Combined with initiatives announced in Budget 2016 and Budget 2017, we are delivering a package of benefits, supports and financial security for those who need it.”

The Honourable Seamus O’Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence
“Canadian Armed Forces Members and Veterans are highly skilled and must have with the right transitional support to find meaningful and fulfilling employment after the military. Working with the Minister of Veterans Affairs to reduce complexity for Canadian Armed Forces members and Veterans was a commitment to them, and I am pleased that we have made great strides in fulfilling it.”

The Honourable Harjit Sajjan, Minister of National Defence
Quick Facts
The Pension for Life plan includes the: Pain and Suffering Compensation, Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation and Income Replacement Benefit.
These benefits will come into force on April 1, 2019.

When compared to pre-2016 programs, the Pension for Life Change means that for example:
In 2019, a 25 year old Veteran who is 100% disabled could see her/his monthly support increase by approximately $1,700 when compared to figures before Budget 2016.
In 2019, a 50 year old Veteran who is 100% disabled could see her/his monthly support increase by approximately $1,700 when compared to figures before Budget 2016.

Veterans will now be able to make the choice of whether to receive a monthly, tax-free pain and suffering compensation for life or cash out their monthly payments for a one-time lump sum.
Six different income support programs will be consolidated into a single financial benefit to simplify and streamline access to VAC services.
Additional changes are also being made to survivor benefits. Support for spouses will move from 50% to 70% of the Veteran’s Income Replacement


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-pension-disability-1.4457755

*Ottawa pouring an extra $3.6B into veterans' benefits* - 20 Dec 17
_Liberals campaigned on promise to give veterans the option of taking the lump sum or a lifetime pension_

The Liberal government today initiated an intricate overhaul of the system to compensate wounded ex-soldiers, but it remains to be seen whether it will be enough to placate a volatile community of Canadian veterans.

The plan, rolled out by Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O'Regan, is meant to address smouldering grievances among veterans that has led to protests and at one point spawned a class-action lawsuit.

As CBC News reported last week, the changes involve a two-part rejigging of the current system. Officials outlined how that would work on Wednesday and announced there will be an injection of fresh cash beginning on April 1, 2019.

Speaking on background before the announcement, officials estimated the changes would mean an extra $3.6 billion being poured into veterans benefits.

"We are delivering a package of benefits and supports, and financial security for those who need it," O'Regan said.

At issue is a tax-free lump sum payment, brought in a dozen years ago, to replace a system of pensions for pain and suffering injuries.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals promised in the last election to give veterans an "option" of taking the lump sum or a lifetime pension.

What the federal government is introducing Wednesday is a patchwork allowing the lump sum to be amortized out over a veteran's lifetime, delivering a maximum tax-free payment of $1,150 per month.

In additional, the Liberals will introduce another tax-free pain and suffering award on top of the existing one. It too will come in either lump sum or pension form that would give wounded veterans up to $1,500 per month, depending on their level of disability.

'Not everyone will receive the maximum award'

The second component involves a bundling of six existing income-replacement benefits — already available under the often-maligned New Veterans Charter — into one payment.

The new income replacement benefit will be taxable and it is meant for those "who are experiencing barriers to re-establishment due to a health problem resulting" from their service.

Significantly, it will be available to veterans, survivors for life, and orphans, should they need it.

The part of the plan that will draw the most scrutiny and perhaps political fire is the pain and suffering awards.

O'Regan was clear that "not everyone will receive the maximum award."

Under the current lump sum system, the maximum payout is $360,000, but documents obtained by CBC News under access to information show the average award is $43,000.

Translated to a pension, that means few wounded soldiers would ever see the entire $1,150 per month.
Under the old pension act, the most severely wounded soldiers would have received up to $2,700 per month.

Before Wednesday's announcement, some ex-soldiers were clear on what their litmus test for success is: more money in their pockets. 

"The bar the government has to meet is parity with the pension act in terms of the net dollars in a veteran's pocket every month," said retired major Mark Campbell, who lost both legs in a blast in a booby-trapped ditch in Afghanistan.

"It can only be a real pension if the benefits are tax free and if there is no clawback of their military pension as part of the disability payment."

The Liberal government has long said its changes "would not seek parity" with the previous system, but officials emphasize that when the two tax-free benefits are combined, that would only mean a difference of $50 per month.

Veterans affairs officials used charts Wednesday to demonstrate that combining all all elements of the plan —  both tax-free and taxable benefits — soldiers would be better off financially.


----------



## Gunner98

Indeed some of the funding promised under the last federal budget was to top up lump-sum payments to the new $360,000 ceiling.  This is not really new, increased benefits it is a matter of playing catch-up.  Yes it puts money in people's pockets but...my top-up was $17K based on $100K+ lump-sum pay-out in 2014 - it is not new pockets.


----------



## Rifleman62

My first take away is eff date 1 Apr 17. The Liberals will probably call a election prior to that date before Trudeau's popularity falls too much more. Thus Vets will not have seen how this program will work for them as individuals, and will not be a factor in the election if this new scheme is not as billed.

How long did it take to deliver $10M + to Khadr? Fifteen months?


----------



## TCM621

So I did the math and at my rate of disability under the pension act I would receive 1007 per month tax free. From now until 80 I would receive $507,528. I have received $90,000 as lump sums. To earn 507,528 over 42 years I would have to earn 4.2% per year and not touch the money. If I invested this money at 4.2% and took out 1000 dollars a month, I would be out of money inside ten years and I would be taxed on the investment, further lowering its value.

I can work so the additional monetary benefits are irrelevant to me although the Voc rehab is a great benefit. The educational allowance is available to anyone so it shouldn't factor into the equation of injured vets.

Under the new system, if I understand it right, assuming you only qualify for the main PSC and it is a simple division (ie 25% impairment = 25% PSC) I would earn a total of $144,900 ( (1150*.25) * 12 * 42) minus the 90k I have already received with would work out to  108 dollars a month (144,900 -90,000 /42/12).

So just on the face of it, there is a ~$350,000 difference between the pension act and the new system. Do the new benefits have a 350k value? Maybe I misunderstood something, the "factsheets" don't offer a ton of facts but it doesn't seem like much of an improvement. I will credit the liberals with the education allowance to all veterans. That has been a long time coming. I do think the idea of retraining someone to be a valuable and contributing member of society after medical release is good for the members and society.


----------



## 57Chevy

This is great news for soldiers and veterans alike, even though it comes into effect Apr 2019.


----------



## Amos

What will that mean to current benefits? If someone is getting Earning Loss Benefits, sounds like it's going to be renamed and $$ will be different.  Does it mean that will change for current vets? What about DEC? 
So many unknown


----------



## OldSolduer

It’s a political ploy designed to shut people up. I think it’s smoke and mirrors. Pay no a attention to that man behind the curtain.


----------



## Amos

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> It’s a political ploy designed to shut people up. I think it’s smoke and mirrors. Pay no a attention to that man behind the curtain.



Yep, I'm afraid so.  I doubt veterans will be better off after all this is (if) implemented than now.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> It’s a political ploy designed to shut people up. I think it’s smoke and mirrors. Pay no a attention to that man behind the curtain.



I don't believe it will change a thing for a run of the mill guy like me.  I've already taken my lumps, so to speak, unless it will change the amount of the one pension l do have.


----------



## Franko

Funny how it wasn't even voted on, like the NVC.....


----------



## Halifax Tar

57Chevy said:
			
		

> This is great news for soldiers and veterans alike, even though it comes into effect Apr 2019.



Can you articulate the advantages that this change in veterans benefits has created ?  

Coming in and saying this is great news with out any supporting information as to why this is great news just makes you sound like a camp trumpeter. 

I am honestly waiting from someone to show the awesomness this move has delivered.  And lets just leave out the fact this isn't coming into effect until Apr 2019 when it will be used as a campaign victory by the LPC.


----------



## ChilliFe81

As someone who is 50% disabled, released 4c.. so I don't have to deal with all that SISIP crap. I am totally confused.(I get confused easily)

I am on the rehab program, on ELB and CIA(grade 3) and currently applying for the DEC(Diminished Earning Capacity) which I have no clue if I'm going to get approved or not for.

Will all this be redundant April 2019 or will everything transfer over? I've read that they're getting rid of CIA and CIAS and making it some kind of tax free program. Will the same ELB(DEC) continue on? Whats this 1% increase every year, would that apply for me?

I know, so many questions and no one knows.


----------



## Rifleman62

This announcement, without any facts/tables/etc just leaves Vets in limbo adding stress for 15 months. Typical VAC. 

For Vets who really need support to live day to day, this is cruel punishment, the waiting and wondering. 

Why come out with an announcement that cannot be accomplished and must be passed into law/regulations for 15 months, then the process commences which will take how long for thousands of Vets?

IMHO still a political ploy as I posted above.

P.S. I don't think this will affect me too much so no iron in the fire.


----------



## TCM621

57Chevy said:
			
		

> This is great news for soldiers and veterans alike, even though it comes into effect Apr 2019.



I don't see the great news. Maybe because it's light on details. As I posted above, on the face it looks like it is way off expectations.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I don't see the great news. Maybe because it's light on details. As I posted above, on the face it looks like it is way off expectations.



As far as I can see, expectations are a return to the previous levels of monthly pensions as well as all of the new features since then, focused on rehab, re-entry etc.

I am soon to be applying for a VAC pension, for a host of injuries and debilitating conditions based on over 35 years of service....every year of which I volunteered for.  Like the vast majority of VAC clients, I have not suffered these conditions and injuries as a result of enemy action, but rather from pursuing the career that I volunteered for.

So, not as a potential client but as a taxpayer, I ask myself: "when is enough going to be enough"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm really glad I am not in your CofC...seriously, it sure doesn't come across like you've much compassion for injured service people with the 'volunteered' line.  My back is degraded for life, with no chance of improvement, from an argument with a DZ that I lost.  Does it matter if that was during war or peace? I've been told my latter years are likely going to be spent in a wheelchair.  Is that not enough, or does it have to be from an IED or a enemy sniper round thru the spine 'during war'?

 :facepalm:

So I'll ask you then...what is your belief/opinion on what is '_enough_'?


----------



## MARS

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does it matter if that was during war or peace?
> :facepalm:



I can guarantee you it doesn't matter one fucking iota to the hundreds, no, thousands of civilian taxpayers walking past me on Front Street in Toronto as I write this.

Get yourself an empty Tim Hortons cup and tell your story to them...maybe you will have enough spare change for a hamburger when you are done.

WTF does this even have to do with a CoC??  He is talking taxpayers...and while we are all taxpayers, we are really talking about the millions of civilians ignorant to our, and in this case, your plight, who fund this thing.  Those civilians grossly outnumber us and at this very moment, they are more concerned about their Christmas shopping than they are EVER going to be about your back.

Just saying...


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm really glad I am not in your CofC...seriously, it sure doesn't come across like you've much compassion for injured service people with the 'volunteered' line.  My back is degraded for life, with no chance of improvement, from an argument with a DZ that I lost.  Does it matter if that was during war or peace? I've been told my latter years are likely going to be spent in a wheelchair.  Is that not enough, or does it have to be from an IED or a enemy sniper round thru the spine 'during war'?
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> So I'll ask you then...what is your belief/opinion on what is '_enough_'?



Spare me.  I have no feeling in my feet - and have not had so for four years.  I have advanced OA in one of my hips, which needs to be replaced.  My knees are truly fucked, I have post concussive syndrome, and I have 7 compromised disks.  I also volunteered to be an infanteer, and it comes with the territory.  I will happily take what is offered in compensation of my injuries, but i do not fel entitled to more than what the people of Canada have on offer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MARS said:
			
		

> I can guarantee you it doesn't matter one fucking iota to the hundreds, no, thousands of civilian taxpayers walking past me on Front Street in Toronto as I write this.
> 
> Get yourself an empty Tim Hortons cup and tell your story to them...maybe you will have enough spare change for a hamburger when you are done.



I've no doubt you're correct, and I've never claimed the average Canadian cares overly about Armed Forces members or vets in Canada, except perhaps around Nov 11th.  Also why the government can ignore the issue, or partly why.  



> WTF does this even have to do with a CoC??



He is not 'just' a taxpayer, is he?  Is he not also an Officer in the CAF with decades of experience and of a somewhat high rank?  That was what I was thinking when I said I am glad I am not in his CofC;  his post certainly makes it sound like injuries only mean something if they are in wartime, and hey, we're all just really volunteers right?  That was the context of my opening comment.



> He is talking taxpayers...and while we are all taxpayers, we are really talking about the millions of civilians ignorant to our, and in this case, your plight, who fund this thing.  Those civilians grossly outnumber us and at this very moment, they are more concerned about their Christmas shopping than they are EVER going to be about your back.
> 
> Just saying...



Trust me, I know, and so do many other people who were injured during their service.  They care about important things like free wifi on public transit!!!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm thankful I'm not nearly as injured as many of you (not to sound harsh). I think what bothers me most is only one messed up disc and tinnitus so debilitating I sometimes dummy myself with whiskey so I can sleep. Which explains a lot of my late night posts eh?  ;D

Serious question though, how does our VA/benefits system compare to the civilian world?  So if someone's back was injured due to/at work what might they be looking at for compensation? Are we fairly equal to civi street, are we in a better position?  How does our benefits system compare to firefighters or LEOs?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Spare me.  I have no feeling in my feet - and have not had so for four years.  I have advanced OA in one of my hips, which needs to be replaced.  My knees are truly fucked, I have post concussive syndrome, and I have 7 compromised disks.  I also volunteered to be an infanteer, and it comes with the territory.  I will happily take what is offered in compensation of my injuries, but i do not fel entitled to more than what the people of Canada have on offer.



I guess the difference between you and I, in part, is that I feel some compassion to you, both as a taxpayer and a still serving member who was injured during service (I only mentioned my back, because it is the only one I receive a pension for at this time).  Regardless of peacetime, volunteered for the crunchie trade, etc.  It was in the service of your country.  

You didn't actually answer my question on what is 'enough'.  If you have any thoughts on what is 'enough', I'd like to hear them.  Or, what is 'too much'.  You've answered more like a politician to this point, not really saying what is enough but that it should be good enough.

I didn't think there was any value of reacting to your 'spare me' comment, but again...I am glad I'm not in your CofC, if a back injury that could mean 'retirement spent in a wheelchair' isn't worthy of your compassion.   :not-again:  I'd honestly prefer to spend retirement with my wife, who I leave home alone quite often, in the canoe, or hiking or travelling or something other than her pushing me around and helping me get onto the toilet.  I know...selfish of me.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How does our benefits system compare to firefighters or LEOs?



The City of Toronto Police, Fire, Paramedics: 
Suitable Job
Suitable employment is defined as employment consistent with the employee’s skills and functional abilities that does not pose a health and safety hazard to the employee or co-worker.

For Police and Fire that likely means Prevention. 
For Paramedics ( being a much smaller Department ), it could mean anything. Community Medicine, Community Referral EMS (CREMS), vaccination clinics, public relations. Possibly re-assignment to another Department. 

Employees who are placed in a permanent alternate position, due to an occupational injury/illness (as defined by the *Workplace Safety & Insurance Board), will be subject to the normal assessment period and will receive the wage rate of the position to which they are assigned. If the pre-injury rate of pay is higher than the relocated position rate, then the pre-injury rate is to be maintained. It is understood that the pre-injury rate is subject to all wage increases negotiated.


*Workplace Safety & Insurance Board ( WSIB ) Ontario
http://www.wsib.on.ca/WSIBPortal/faces/WSIBHomePage?_afrLoop=1244956027391000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=10dklwajwd_102#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3D10dklwajwd_102%26_afrLoop%3D1244956027391000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D10dklwajwd_126

There is also a Long Term Disability ( LTD ) plan for non-occupational injury / illness.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I guess the difference between you and I, in part, is that I feel some compassion to you, both as a taxpayer and a still serving member who was injured during service (I only mentioned my back, because it is the only one I receive a pension for at this time).  Regardless of peacetime, volunteered for the crunchie trade, etc.  It was in the service of your country.
> 
> You didn't actually answer my question on what is 'enough'.  If you have any thoughts on what is 'enough', I'd like to hear them.  Or, what is 'too much'.  You've answered more like a politician to this point, not really saying what is enough but that it should be good enough.
> 
> I didn't think there was any value of reacting to your 'spare me' comment, but again...I am glad I'm not in your CofC, if a back injury that could mean 'retirement spent in a wheelchair' isn't worthy of your compassion.   :not-again:  I'd honestly prefer to spend retirement with my wife, who I leave home alone quite often, in the canoe, or hiking or travelling or something other than her pushing me around and helping me get onto the toilet.  I know...selfish of me.



To play devil's advocate somewhat- does saying that a veteran shouldn't be entitled to 100%/90%/80%, etc recovery of wages for their lifetime necessarily equal a lack of compassion or empathy? The reality is that the government needs to come out and make a bold statement about what, as you say, is too much or too little and use that as a definition to either move forward or end the debate. 

As for the "service to your country" comment, I think we overuse this somewhat. Any teacher, fire fighter, policeman, lawyer, judge, etc is doing a "service for their country". The difference between all of them and the CAF is unlimited liability. If a judge hurts himself walking into court than shouldn't he be entitled to a similar pension as a soldier who hurt himself outside of the scope of unlimited liability? What about a teacher who is attacked by a student?


----------



## AirDet

It doesn't surprise me that the Liberals think less of us. We've always been considered extendible by the Liberals. All we were asking for was parity and respect. We should have seen this slap in the face coming.


----------



## mariomike

AirDet said:
			
		

> All we were asking for was parody and respect.



I think you mean "parity".  
https://kathleenwcurry.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/easily-confused-words-parody-vs-parity/


----------



## AirDet

The other interesting thing I noticed with the release was the statement on service standards. As of last week VAC is still working on first applications from October 2016. Yes, you read that right 2016.... so much for them saying it has improved.


----------



## AirDet

mariomike said:
			
		

> I think you mean "parity".
> https://kathleenwcurry.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/easily-confused-words-parody-vs-parity/



I hate auto correct!!


----------



## Rifleman62

I don't think it was the use of the word; it was sentence structure:

All we were asking for was parody *parity* and respect. We should have seen this slap in the face *parody* coming.


----------



## TCM621

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> As far as I can see, expectations are a return to the previous levels of monthly pensions as well as all of the new features since then, focused on rehab, re-entry etc.



I don't see that. Maybe I'm wrong but it looks to me like a much reduced pension with a bunch of taxable benefits added on and benefits which claw back pensions and income a vet earns totally separate from any injury. 

I like the rehab, the federal hiring law is really good on paper and the education benefit is long overdue (although it has nothing to do injured vets). But they didn't address the issues brought up, they just focused on the words "lifetime pension". The biggest issue being the claw back of pension earnings.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

EITS,

You have me at a disadvantage sir.  You seem to know who I am, which is unfortunate, as I cherish the thin veil of anonymity that this forum affords us all.  i on the other hand only know what you do, and that we served in the same theatre of war recently, at the same time.  By all accounts, and all of my comments, you and your compatriots served well and honourably.  For the record, I am certain that you have never been on my direct chain of command.

I also note from your posts that you are in a leadership position.  As such, you must surely have known that your "I would not want to be in your CofC" comment was inflammatory in the extreme.  That is a hard thing to hear from anyone - and harder still to hear anonymously .  I would like to think that you made the comment without the full knowledge of how extraordinarily dismissive it was.  If that is not the case, feel free to PM me and we can discuss further.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I guess the difference between you and I, in part, is that I feel some compassion to you, both as a taxpayer and a still serving member who was injured during service (I only mentioned my back, because it is the only one I receive a pension for at this time).  Regardless of peacetime, volunteered for the crunchie trade, etc.  It was in the service of your country.


  

I certainly feel compassion for any soldier who has been injured in the line of duty.  For those that know me beyond an avatar or a reputation, this has been been true for my entire career.  I would ask that you not be so quick to judge my comments as showing a lack of compassion for those I have served for my entire adult life. I also acknowledge that you served your country...as have teachers, first respondents, public servants, scientists, day care workers etc.  



> You didn't actually answer my question on what is 'enough'.  If you have any thoughts on what is 'enough', I'd like to hear them.  Or, what is 'too much'.  You've answered more like a politician to this point, not really saying what is enough but that it should be good enough.



We have a conundrum here,  I have yet to hear what "enough" looks like.  i have merely stated that it feels like an unrealistic expectation.  Can you tell me what "enough" looks like for your injury, or even mine?



> I didn't think there was any value of reacting to your 'spare me' comment, but again...I am glad I'm not in your CofC, if a back injury that could mean 'retirement spent in a wheelchair' isn't worthy of your compassion.   :not-again:



Please refer to my comments above.



> I'd honestly prefer to spend retirement with my wife, who I leave home alone quite often, in the canoe, or hiking or travelling or something other than her pushing me around and helping me get onto the toilet.  I know...selfish of me.



I am not sure how this relates to the care, support, or pension that we receive.  Are you suggesting that there is some combination of medical, social and financial treatment that will change your diagnosis?

In closing, I have had to think a bit about how I would respond to this post.  I veered between taking extreme umbrage, and shrugging it off. 
 I have hopefully adopted somewhat of a middle course.  If you are personally offended or affronted in some way by my response (as opposed to seeing it as a countervailing view in a discussion board), I can only hope that you will take it to PMs. 

With respect,

PPCLI Guy


----------



## McG

AirDet said:
			
		

> It doesn't surprise me that the Liberals think less of us.


I’m not sure one can point a finger at any single political party if one is unhappy with the current proposal. I have seen a few CPC media feeds patting themselves on the back for having made this proposal first just before loosing the last election.


----------



## Teager

What is enough? What does enough look like? Well enough would be parity with the pension act. The problem we have is that the proposed plan helps those that are severely injured which is good and a step in the right direction but only 12% of veterans fall into that category. So 88% of veterans don't see anything with the new plan and don't see parity with the previous system.

In my own opinion you have to wonder how many billions of dollars has the government put towards VAC but how much of an effect has it had on veterans and receiving benefits? Billions of dollars don't seem to be helping the process of applying to vac and getting the services veterans need in timely matter. What should have been done first is clean house of all the beaucrats that are keeping the system heavily weighed down and just causing delays and frustration. Next as Brian has said is a complete re-write of the NVC. There's enough data to show what's good and works and what doesn't and I'm sure with the help of the veteran community something could be done up that would be fair and the majority of vets would be satisfied with. We all know that will never happen so we will continue to beat on this dead horse and slap little band aids on issues that cost Billions but the end result is very small for vets.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The NVC is a creation of the Liberals, no one else.  But, the Cons did SFA to correct or change jack shit, had dickheads as the Minister at times and cut back on services.  Neither is a hero or a devil, they both are to me, equally disappointing.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1531451-veterans-unimpressed-with-new-pension-plan
*
Veterans unimpressed with new pension plan* - 21 Dec 17
_Critics say Liberals failing to live up to ‘one veteran, one standard’ commitment_

A good read.



http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/national-news/2017/12/20/confusion-frustration-greet-liberals-pension-plan-for-disabled-veterans/

*Confusion, frustration greet Liberals’ pension plan for disabled veterans* - LEE BERTHIAUME, Canadian Press - 20 Dec 17

Extract: 1. “It’s confusing,” said Jim Lowther, president of VETS Canada, which support homeless veterans in different cities across the country. “We’ve been going over this all morning, but it’s very vague.

             2. While veterans who want the money right away will still be able to choose the lump-sum payment, the Liberals are also giving them the choice of a monthly payment instead worth up to $1,150.

Those with severe or permanent disabilities will also be eligible for an additional new benefit worth between $500 and $1,500 per month. Both benefits are tax free.

Officials said the more than 61,000 veterans who have already received a lump-sum award will be assessed to determine how much they would have received per month. They will also be eligible for the new benefit, which officials said will be retroactive and could result in substantial one-time payments.

The government will also lump together six different benefits for veterans who can’t find work or whose post-military careers pay less than when they were serving in uniform.

Yet it wasn’t immediately clear who will be eligible for different elements of the new pension plan, or even which of the income-replacement programs will remain in existence after they are merged.

          3. “All of those covered under the (existing) New Veterans Charter will be automatically assessed against the new pension-for-life program,” O’Regan said.

          4. “They’ve created chaos with a vague presentation,” said Aaron Bedard .....“It’s like watching Game of Thrones: You get a couple of answers, but you end up with a dozen new questions.”


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I also note from your posts that you are in a leadership position.  As such, you must surely have known that your "I would not want to be in your CofC" comment was inflammatory in the extreme.  That is a hard thing to hear from anyone - and harder still to hear anonymously .  I would like to think that you made the comment without the full knowledge of how extraordinarily dismissive it was.  If that is not the case, feel free to PM me and we can discuss further.



In all honesty, I'll admit that the comment was overly harsh for the point I was trying to make;  afterall, I am 47 not 17.  Please accept my apology, I did go overboard in trying to make a point.    



> We have a conundrum here,  I have yet to hear what "enough" looks like.  i have merely stated that it feels like an unrealistic expectation.  Can you tell me what "enough" looks like for your injury, or even mine?



For me, I'd like to know that when I am 70+, if I have to get assistance to get out of a wheelchair, that it will be provided so my wife isn't left to struggle with that task.  Or that she won't have to go cold in the winter, or shovel snow because I can't.  I think each person may define it differently what is 'ideal' for their injury.  I am, mostly, concerned with the worst case scenario vets;  those who can't work, who can't look after themselves properly, those who have been broken in body and spirit and need care in ways many Canadians will never understand because they've never sacrificed for others.

I am mostly upset at this newest...I hesitate to call it initiative...announcement because it is *empty* to me, starting with the issue that it will not take effect until April 2019.  It is an empty promise at this point.  

I recall a case from many years ago now, of a LdSH (RC) Warrant Officer, who was shot thru the spine in the FYR, and how the government bickered over who would pay for his wheelchair ramp and what location he was 'authorized' to have it installed.  I remember it because it was the first time I remember being angry at the government and how it was completely missing the point of caring for a vet.  This is the only reference I could find of the story today in a short amount of time looking.    

And here we are today, with more promises that are placed over a year away.  All talk, no walk at least from where I stand.  Again.  It's upsetting.  Not every injured veteran will have the success that Tom Martineau had in recovery.  We, the Canada we, need to look after those ladies and gents for as long as they need us to.



> If you are personally offended or affronted in some way by my response (as opposed to seeing it as a countervailing view in a discussion board),



Not offended at all, I expect people to have varying positions on many topics on the site and to stand behind them with conviction.  

Again, my apology to you for going overboard to make a point.


----------



## mariomike

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Any teacher, fire fighter, policeman, lawyer, judge, etc is doing a "service for their country". The difference between all of them and the CAF is unlimited liability.



The S.O.P. we operated under was simple, 

"Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."

That would apply to police officers, firefighters and paramedics. But, not teachers, lawyers and judges.

The police officers, firefighters and paramedics killed on 9/11 are one example of that S.O.P.

The Rescue Task Force ( RTF ) S.O.P. at Active Shooter incidents is another.
https://nypost.com/2016/10/02/city-program-sends-unarmed-firefighters-and-emts-into-active-shooter-situations/
City sends unarmed firefighters and EMTs into ‘active shooter’  

They go running in when teachers, judges and lawyers are running out.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Is the military the only professional occupation that can't go on strike? Since we're not unionized?


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is the military the only professional occupation that can't go on strike? Since we're not unionized?



Other public safety institutions cannot as well, as they are essential services (EMT. Fire, Police). They all, however, have collective bargaining organizations to gain concessions for them. The RCMP recently just was authorized to form a collective bargaining agent, but had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get it done.

I'm not a fan of big labour unions, but it might be time we need to fight the battle the RCMP just did. Imagine how much stuff would get fixed if an independent arbitrator got a look (and educated on the intricacies) at our pay and benefits (PLD comes to mind), and the ludicrous delays at VAC.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> As for the "service to your country" comment, I think we overuse this somewhat. Any teacher, fire fighter, policeman, lawyer, judge, etc is doing a "service for their country". The difference between all of them and the CAF is unlimited liability.



That is one of many differences.  Can we really compare a 3rd grade teacher to an Infantry Private in a TIC in a place like Afghanistan, or a lawyer to Sgt Doiron who was killed in Iraq in 2015?  This is an overly simplistic comparison.  Military service is unique to any of your examples, with the police being the closest IMO;  RCMP have deployed before and can be involved in the 2 way live range.  But, they still do not compare 100%...



> If a judge hurts himself walking into court than shouldn't he be entitled to a similar pension as a soldier who hurt himself outside of the scope of unlimited liability? What about a teacher who is attacked by a student?



I think we're starting to get away from reality here a bit too much.  I don't see relevance in pursuing too many 'what if' scenarios when we have enough reality-based ones we could discuss.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is the military the only professional occupation that can't go on strike? Since we're not unionized?



Toronto police officers, firefighters and paramedics have been unionized since World War One. 
We do not have, and do not seek, the Right to Strike. Issues not resolved by collective bargaining, go to binding interest arbitration.

There may come a time when, "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" like it or not, civilians are once again drafted into the CAF.

When, like it or not, Reservists are involuntarily activated to full-time and, like it or not, may be sent out of Canada.

VR's will / may be put on hold until "cessation of hostilities". 

What good would a union be then?

See also,

"Unionizing" the CF (merged) 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/1294.250
11 pages.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> There may come a time when, "during hostilities or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada" like it or not, civilians are once again drafted into the CAF.
> 
> When, like it or not, Reservists are involuntarily activated to full-time and, like it or not, may be sent out of Canada.
> 
> VR's will / may be put on hold until "cessation of hostilities".
> 
> What good would a union be then?



Because the MIR& hospital wouldn't be flooded with thousands of people screaming #IJustCan't        
If you go to a MIR on the days preceeding a brigade rucksack march or run and you'll get an idea what I mean.


----------



## cowboy628

Not sure were to put this question, someone post they were at 118% ???. Now I can’t find it. The only way that could happen is if you combined the old and new programs. I was told at one point by DVA the max is only 100% doesn’t matter if you are under new and old program. I’m at 69% old plan, 30% new plan. I guess I Need to talk to them again.


----------



## Teager

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> Not sure were to put this question, someone post they were at 118% ???. Now I can’t find it. The only way that could happen is if you combined the old and new programs. I was told at one point by DVA the max is only 100% doesn’t matter if you are under new and old program. I’m at 69% old plan, 30% new plan. I guess I Need to talk to them again.



You can only get paid the max amount $360k at 100%. If you are over 100% you still have benfits for that injury/illness such as medical care.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is the military the only professional occupation that can't go on strike? Since we're not unionized?



You clearly don't understand how the WO's & Sgt's Mess works  ;D  :sarcasm:


----------



## cowboy628

:rofl:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You clearly don't understand how the WO's & Sgt's Mess works  ;D  :sarcasm:



I think my wife calls it passive aggressive behaviour.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That is one of many differences.  Can we really compare a 3rd grade teacher to an Infantry Private in a TIC in a place like Afghanistan, or a lawyer to Sgt Doiron who was killed in Iraq in 2015?  This is an overly simplistic comparison.  Military service is unique to any of your examples, with the police being the closest IMO;  RCMP have deployed before and can be involved in the 2 way live range.  But, they still do not compare 100%...
> 
> I think we're starting to get away from reality here a bit too much.  I don't see relevance in pursuing too many 'what if' scenarios when we have enough reality-based ones we could discuss.



There is relevance based on your comments though. The information private hurt in the conduct of ops is absolutely different than the teacher. The difference is for those hurt in training and non op purposes.

In a sense, a teacher/nurse who is hurt on the job is no different than a soldier who is hurt in training. Different circumstances, same end state.

I have a sis terrible who is a nurse and has seen more death, despair, and injury than the bulk of the military ever will. She has PTSD as a result of some incidents. To me, she deserves the same a vet with PTSD would get, and vice versa, as they BOTH got their injuries based on service to the public. Neither is more deserving than the other.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We will have to disagree on this.  Nurses and teachers don’t sign on knowing doing their job may result in their own violent death.  

Huge difference.  Huge.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Serious question though, how does our VA/benefits system compare to the civilian world?





			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I have a sis terrible who is a nurse and has seen more death, despair, and injury than the bulk of the military ever will. She has PTSD as a result of some incidents.



I don't know how the Ontario WSIB - PTSD Policy compares to the VA - PTSD policy, but perhaps a comparison can be made.

In Ontario, the WSIB Policy, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) in First Responders  does not apply to nurses.

The Policy defines "first responder" as police officers, firefighters and paramedics. 

This is what caught my eye,

"The first responder must have been employed as a first responder for at least one day on or after April 6, 2014." 

I don't have PTSD. Even if I did, the Policy would not apply to me as I retired as a "first responder" in 2009.

Presumption
"If a first responder is diagnosed with PTSD by a psychiatrist or psychologist, the PTSD is presumed to have arisen out of and in the course of the first responder's employment, unless the contrary is shown."

In other words, that means "cumulative mental stress". aka "burnout".

At our departmental pensioner luncheons we have been hearing ( unofficially ) that there is fear higher up in the Dept. that if an honourable path exists to escape Emergency Operations ( ie: get transferred into a "suitable" job with no loss of pay and all raises, seniority, benefits etc. ) that many will take it. 

Thus causing the car count to decrease, causing response times to increase. At the same time call volume is rapidly increasing due to the growing, and ageing, population in the city. 

I don't intend to argue if the Ontario WSIB - PTSD Policy is fair or unfair. I didn't write it. That's just the way it is.

Separate from WSIB, is the Long Term Disability ( LTD ) Plan. 

"The City will provide for all employees by contract with an insurer selected by the City, a Long Term Disability plan for employees and will pay one hundred percent (100%) of the cost thereof to provide a long term disability benefit of seventy-five percent (75%) of basic salary for disability claims.
The City shall provide employees who are in receipt of the long term disability plan benefit, benefit coverage under the Extended Health Care and Dental plans.
The City shall pay one hundred per cent (100%) of the premiums."

LTD  has always been in our collective agreement with the City. 
LTD pays 75 per cent, until age 65. That can be topped up to 100 per cent through Third Party Liability or your Sick Bank.
At age 65 you go on OMERS pension. 
LTD covers illness and injury not covered by WSIB ( including stress related disability ).  
So, by WSIB or LTD, PTSD has always been covered.
http://www.torontoparamedic.com/misc/TO%20Manulife/TO%20Benefit%20Book.pdf
"This Benefit Summary printed: May 28, 2013"

It's not up to date, but will give you an idea.

Employees and pensioners are covered by the City of Toronto Group Benefits program, the collective agreement with the City, and WSIB and OMERS with the Province of Ontario.

"How does our VA/benefits system compare to the civilian world?"

Hope that helps.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> We will have to disagree on this.  Nurses and teachers don’t sign on knowing doing their job may result in their own violent death.
> 
> Huge difference.  Huge.



True. However- the point is that soldiers are predominantly injured in events that aren't related to the "violent death" or unlimited liability portion of the job.

If soldier A hurts his knee jumping out of a truck on an ex than is it really different than a construction worker jumping off the back of a truck?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This is a dangerous slope to start down. Injured during duty time in performance of a military duty is the delineating line here.  

Is there a difference between a SAR Tech who dies on a trg jump and a SOF door kicker who is jumping into a theatre to visit death on our enemies?  Is there not a difference between those 2 CAF members and a civilian jump instructor?

The difference is the same as your example.  One of them is military and injured performing a military duty and one is a civilian hurt but not during peroformance of a military duty.   We can’t start saying Bloggins jumped off a truck in Iraq and is therefore afforded better care while Smith who was injured jumping off the same kind of truck in Shilo gets less.  
 :2c:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This is a dangerous slope to start down. Injured during duty time in performance of a military duty is the delineating line here.
> 
> Is there a difference between a SAR Tech who dies on a trg jump and a SOF door kicker who is jumping into a theatre to visit death on our enemies?  Is there not a difference between those 2 CAF members and a civilian jump instructor?
> 
> The difference is the same as your example.  One of them is military and injured performing a military duty and one is a civilian hurt but not during peroformance of a military duty.   We can’t start saying Bloggins jumped off a truck in Iraq and is therefore afforded better care while Smith who was injured jumping off the same kind of truck in Shilo gets less.
> :2c:



Military duty doesn't make us automatically better than civilians or entitled to more. There is a certain attitude that military service somehow makes everything more important. Other professions have similar, and arguably more influential roles on society (police, fire fighters, doctors, etc) than we do. They arguably put themselves in harms way more than we do also. 

There are duties that seperate us from them but it doesn't include every duty. That's why we have CF-98s and instruments to delineate between training and ops.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Militzary duty doesn't make us automatically better than civilians or entitled to more. There is a certain attitude that military service somehow makes everything more important. Other professions have similar, and arguably more influential roles on society (police, fire fighters, doctors, etc) than we do. They arguably put themselves in harms way more than we do also.
> 
> There are duties that seperate us from them but it doesn't include every duty. That's why we have CF-98s and instruments to delineate between training and ops.



It does.  When the country requires unlimited liability that is setting that group aside and making them different and unique; and the care that should be afforded to those who voluntarily offer unlimited liability should be equal too the demand for the said unlimited liability.  

Also in Canada the only profession who can be ordered, without the right to refuse, into harms way is the Armed Services.  It comes with that whole unlimited liability thingy.


----------



## Teager

For anyone wanting the math for the pension.



https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/PSA%20CALCULATOR.pdf?token=AWw4esF4bnRvVucNuHykjfZy93M27Pl8UywjB9mJTQ_bcB8r7dNCjTjks37RupwENT2izpmnfc4zx0OnGhR0mKzYSg9JDOpPDhOORfbfEPiHPq66FKkNOhvB_2oQC1GIZw-8_sOtpqYl6iiL86BuHz5a-FWuR3YhWFjsyxANxvQt9yRpoU0zgyWOPlJM8ml17heLHXLKapd8JVgMbRAbFKfi


----------



## mariomike

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> (police, fire fighters, doctors, etc)



According to the Government of Canada, there are six Public Safety Occupations.
Doctors are not on the list,

"public safety occupation means the occupation of
(a) firefighter,
(b) police officer,
(c) corrections officer,
(d) air traffic controller,
(e) commercial airline pilot, 
(f) paramedic;"
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._945/page-107.html



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Also in Canada the only profession who can be ordered, without the right to refuse, into harms way is the Armed Services.



The SOP we operated under when I was on the job: 

"Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:
			
		

> According to the Government of Canada, there are six Public Safety Occupations.
> Doctors are not on the list,
> 
> "public safety occupation means the occupation of
> (a) firefighter,
> (b) police officer,
> (c) corrections officer,
> (d) air traffic controller,
> (e) commercial airline pilot,
> (f) paramedic;"
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._945/page-107.html
> 
> The SOP we all operated under when I was on the job:
> 
> "Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."



I may be wrong but its what i read in Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada, published in 2003. 

Also the difference here is a paramedic cannot be given a lawful command to lay down their life.  Meaning while you cannot refuse dangerous life threatening work you cannot be ordered to your death.  We can.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This is a dangerous slope to start down. Injured during duty time in performance of a military duty is the delineating line here.
> 
> Is there a difference between a SAR Tech who dies on a trg jump and a SOF door kicker who is jumping into a theatre to visit death on our enemies?  Is there not a difference between those 2 CAF members and a civilian jump instructor?
> 
> The difference is the same as your example.  One of them is military and injured performing a military duty and one is a civilian hurt but not during peroformance of a military duty.   We can’t start saying Bloggins jumped off a truck in Iraq and is therefore afforded better care while Smith who was injured jumping off the same kind of truck in Shilo gets less.
> :2c:



And, in the CAF, if you refuse to do any of those things, you can be shot at dawn. Literally.


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, in the CAF, if you refuse to do any of those things, you can be shot at dawn. Literally.



When is the last time that happened?

"Harold Joseph Pringle (died 5 July 1945) was the only soldier of the Canadian Army to be executed during the Second World War."
"Pringle was sentenced to death for murder."
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo4/no2/book-livre-04-eng.asp


This is just for a work refusal,

Toronto Police Officer Charged with Criminal Negligence Causing Death and Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=2673

Toronto Police Officer Facing Additional Charge: Breach of Trust by a Public Officer
https://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=2713


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:
			
		

> When is the last time that happened?
> 
> "Harold Joseph Pringle (died 5 July 1945) was the only soldier of the Canadian Army to be executed during the Second World War."
> "Pringle was sentenced to death for murder."
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo4/no2/book-livre-04-eng.asp
> 
> 
> This is just for a work refusal,
> 
> Toronto Police Officer Charged with Criminal Negligence Causing Death and Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life
> https://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=2673
> 
> Toronto Police Officer Facing Additional Charge: Breach of Trust by a Public Officer
> https://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_template.php?nrid=2713



It matters not when it last happened it’s included in the unlimited liability that we alone hold.  

Also your links are entirely too vague.


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It matters not when it last happened it’s included in the unlimited liability that we alone hold.



No, it isn't.  The death penalty was removed from the NDA about two decades ago.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No, it isn't.  The death penalty was removed from the NDA about two decades ago.



The death peanalty yes.  Punishment for desertion, and many other service offences that are unique to military service in Canada, still exists; and these offences are taken seriously, especially in the face of the enemy.  Again, it’s about our unlimited liability. QR&O Vol II, Chap 103 is quite explicit and well detailed. 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/ch-103.page

Intersting link:
http://cdn.forces.ca/_CAPTIONS/duty_with_honour.html


----------



## mariomike

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It matters not when it last happened it’s included in the unlimited liability that we alone hold.



Last Canadian soldier executed for a military offence was in World War One. 

List of Canadian soldiers executed for military offences
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_soldiers_executed_for_military_offences
On 16 August 2006, British Defence Secretary Des Browne announced that the government would issue full pardons for all 306 Commonwealth soldiers (including the twenty-three Canadians) who were executed under these circumstances during World War I.

"In the Canadian army, only one soldier was executed for committing a military offense during the Second World War, Private Harold Joseph Pringle of The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment. He was executed after VE-Day in Italy in 1945 for the crimes of desertion and accomplice to murder."

Where does it say a Canadian soldier of today can be executed for a military offence?



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Also your links are entirely too vague.



Hope this is satisfactory to you,

National Post

Toronto police officer could face life in prison after man's death following suicide attempt
http://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/toronto-police-officer-could-face-life-in-prison-after-mans-death-following-suicide-attempt
The provincial SIU charged Const. Kyle Upjohn with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessities of life after a five-month investigation


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The death peanalty yes.  Punishment for desertion, and many other service offences that are unique to military service in Canada, still exists; and these offences are taken seriously, especially in the face of the enemy.  Again, it’s about our unlimited liability. QR&O Vol II, Chap 103 is quite explicit and well detailed.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-02/ch-103.page
> 
> Intersting link:
> http://cdn.forces.ca/_CAPTIONS/duty_with_honour.html



The key being "in the face of the enemy". WOL or desertion in peacetime results in a charge and release in the extreme cases.


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:
			
		

> Last Canadian soldier executed for a military offence was in World War One.
> 
> List of Canadian soldiers executed for military offences
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_soldiers_executed_for_military_offences
> On 16 August 2006, British Defence Secretary Des Browne announced that the government would issue full pardons for all 306 Commonwealth soldiers (including the twenty-three Canadians) who were executed under these circumstances during World War I.
> 
> "In the Canadian army, only one soldier was executed for committing a military offense during the Second World War, Private Harold Joseph Pringle of The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment. He was executed after VE-Day in Italy in 1945 for the crimes of desertion and accomplice to murder."
> 
> Where does it say a Canadian soldier of today can be executed for desertion?
> 
> Hope this is satisfactory to you,
> 
> National Post
> 
> Toronto police officer could face life in prison after man's death following suicide attempt
> http://nationalpost.com/news/toronto/toronto-police-officer-could-face-life-in-prison-after-mans-death-following-suicide-attempt
> The provincial SIU charged Const. Kyle Upjohn with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessities of life after a five-month investigation



Your point 1.  See the post previous to yours, 

Tor Police Guy, not seeing the correlation here.  He is accused off failing to help a suicidal guy.  Not seeing how this related to anything being discussed here.  Perhaps I’m missing a detail ?


----------



## mariomike

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Meaning while you cannot refuse dangerous life threatening work you cannot be ordered to your death.  We can.



You mean like a Kamikaze attack?



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Tor Police Guy, not seeing the correlation here.  He is accused off failing to help a suicidal guy.  Not seeing how this related to anything being discussed here.  Perhaps I’m missing a detail ?



Meaning nobody faces the death penalty, but emergency services face prison time - life in prison, according to the National Post - for work refusal.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The key being "in the face of the enemy". WOL or desertion in peacetime results in a charge and release in the extreme cases.



The level of discipline and liability required of CAF members tdoes not change whether in times of peace or open conflict.  The use of the term in the face of the enemy is simply an amplification of circumstance. 

For example, a sailor in peacetime can be ordered to their certain death for the sake of the ship and remaing crew. The fact an enemy is present or not makes no impact.  The discipline and required liability never changes and is unique in Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> You mean like a Kamikaze attack?



Two-person sniff test.


----------



## mariomike

"...ordered to your death."

Kamikaze came to mind when I read that.


----------



## PuckChaser

mariomike said:
			
		

> but emergency services face prison time - life in prison, according to the National Post - for work refusal.



So do military members. NDA 83 - Disobedience of a lawful command.



> Disobedience of lawful command
> 83 Every person who disobeys a lawful command of a superior officer is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.
> 
> R.S., c. N-4, s. 73.


----------



## Halifax Tar

mariomike said:
			
		

> "...ordered to your death."
> 
> Kamikaze came to mind when I read that.



I think i gave a perfectly reasonable scenario.


----------



## mariomike

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So do military members. NDA 83 - Disobedience of a lawful command.



I remember that, and I know soldiers can be sent to prison for refusing a lawful order.


It was this that I questioned,



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, in the CAF, if you refuse to do any of those things, you can be shot at dawn. Literally.




Also this,

"...ordered to your death."

I've been learning as much as I can about Bomber Command for years. Only the German U-boat crews had a more pitiful chance of survival.

High Command knew that death was a mathematical certainty if crews were never relieved. That was considered to be unacceptable from a morale point of view. Especially by the crews. 

So, without looking it up, they decided that offering them a 50-50 chance of survival was the way to go. To keep morale up. 
Even though the reality was worse than 50-50, some did survive. 

This was based on the "Moran principle". "That courage is not an absolute human characteristic, but expendable capital every man possesses in varying quantity. As Lord Moran put it, “They had used up their reserves of courage.” For some it was the cumulative effects of mental and physical fatigue."
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=iP4_Wr7oNKW7jwSZ5K-oAw&q=%22moran+principle%22+%22courage+is+not+an+absolute+human+characteristic%22&oq=%22moran+principle%22+%22courage+is+not+an+absolute+human+characteristic%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...53616.63183.0.63695.6.6.0.0.0.0.197.769.0j6.6.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.XlwLyzZ-xBU

They would perhaps call it PTSD today.

The Nazi U-Boat force faced a similar situation, and handled it about the same way. As far as I can tell.
That there had to be some hope of survival.


----------



## Rifleman62

Ever read Moran's The Anatomy of Courage?


----------



## mariomike

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ever read Moran's The Anatomy of Courage?



No I have not. Just excerpts from it in books I have read pertaining to Bomber Command.

Have to add that to my reading list.


----------



## meni0n

To get back on topic, from what I understand is that for those that took the lump sum, there will be a recalculation on the amount based on the age and life expectancy. Then you will be given a choice of taking the remaining amount in a lump sum or spread out. I am a bit confused about that since the new "pension" just looks like the lump sum spread out.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> They will need a platoon of Actuaries to convert a cash payout received under the new act, add the bump last year, convert to lifetime pension using Life Tables, deduct the cash received to date as a monthly payments = the start date of a new lifetime pension.
> 
> As like the Reserve Pension, they will probably use two different Life Tables: one for RegF and one for ResF. It didn't make sence for the RFPP, so VAC will probably do it.
> 
> http://www.veterans.gc.ca/pdf/services/disability-pension/Disability-Pension-Rates-2017.pdf
> 
> Under the old Act, eff 1 Jan 17, max (100% disabled) monthly Single - $2,733; Married - $3417; Married, two dependants - $4032.



Generally the net present value of a perpetuity is 18,000 for every $100 of monthly income. That's  how most pension's are estimated.


----------



## brihard

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Generally the net present value of a perpetuity is 18,000 for every $100 of monthly income. That's  how most pension's are estimated.



If you’re able to, can you break that one down a layer for us? I don’t quite need it drawn in crayons, but I feel like what you just said is on the cusp of me learning something quite useful that’s also simple once grasped. I’d like to bridge that gap if you don’t mind a few more words on it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

All the input is great, keep it all in mind for the next time this subject comes up.

I only say that, because I personally believe, Trudeau and the grits will not win the next election. So this will be dead in the water.

-or-

As per the current governments ethics violations and election promises, to date, I don't believe he'd keep his promise anyway. There is only one group of people this PM seems concerned with, and Veterans is not it.

So, at this point and time, I believe talk of compensation, by this government is moot. However, don't let me stop the discussion, I'm just tossing in my  :2c:


----------



## cowboy628

I asked this earlier today but on the wrong board so its a redo, lol

       So if your 70% under the pre 2006 DVA , and 30%  on the NVA after 2006 that =100%. Do those numbers get combined in the new program. ???? VAC could not answer that, they said hmmmm never thought of that.
 :
thanks in advance


----------



## brihard

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> I asked this earlier today but on the wrong board so its a redo, lol
> 
> So if your 70% under the pre 2006 DVA , and 30%  on the NVA after 2006 that =100%. Do those numbers get combined in the new program. ???? VAC could not answer that, they said hmmmm never thought of that.
> :
> thanks in advance



Since there is no legislation, regulation, or policy for the new system yet, that cannot be answered. The law has to pass first to provide the ‘skeleton’, and then various levels of government and VAC will flesh it out to a workable form.


----------



## cowboy628

Thx for your thoughts, I would guess a few guys are in that boat.


----------



## Amos

Brihard said:
			
		

> Since there is no legislation, regulation, or policy for the new system yet, that cannot be answered. The law has to pass first to provide the ‘skeleton’, and then various levels of government and VAC will flesh it out to a workable form.


Same query
42% before 2006, what happens to new pensioned condition under new charter?  what if new condition works out to (pick a number it doen'st matter) pretend 20%? Does it mean the whole will be combined and work out to 62%???
What if I get 42% now, and get new cash out amount for 20% new condition? do I need to transfer that to pension for life?


----------



## Occam

GreenArmychick said:
			
		

> Same query
> 42% before 2006, what happens to new pensioned condition under new charter?  what if new condition works out to (pick a number it doen'st matter) pretend 20%? Does it mean the whole will be combined and work out to 62%???
> What if I get 42% now, and get new cash out amount for 20% new condition? do I need to transfer that to pension for life?



No pension under the Pension Act will be affected by either the NVC, or whatever they call this pending mess.

Using the numbers you tossed out, the 42% under the Pension Act and 20% under either NVC or aforementioned pending mess, are added together only to obtain your overall disability rating.  Though you can certainly have an overall disability rating over 100%, they stop paying out additional Pension Act pension/lump sum awards once you've reached 100%.  Any ratings beyond that are for treatment benefits only.


----------



## Amos

Occam said:
			
		

> No pension under the Pension Act will be affected by either the NVC, or whatever they call this pending mess.
> 
> Using the numbers you tossed out, the 42% under the Pension Act and 20% under either NVC or aforementioned pending mess, are added together only to obtain your overall disability rating.  Though you can certainly have an overall disability rating over 100%, they stop paying out additional Pension Act pension/lump sum awards once you've reached 100%.  Any ratings beyond that are for treatment benefits only.


Sounds like, if awarded a cash award for new disabilty,  before that new system comes into effect, best keep that $$$ since my 42% under pension act is more that the new 100% coming.  Did I get that right?


----------



## Occam

Any new Disability Award awarded before 1 April 2019 will be in the form of the lump sum payment (status quo).  Supposedly, when the new as-yet-unwritten legislation kicks in on that date, there will be some kind of a lifetime pension (the details of which are incalculable by mere mortals) that takes into account what you've already received as a lump sum.


----------



## Rifleman62

VAC Facebook anouncement:

https://www.facebook.com/VeteransAffairsCanada/?hc_ref=ARQUVstym9rt9vKwCrCTM9bYze4sHssB2VV1oGkVbigzV-gvSAfDbwDeRhcLNPUz6rM&fref=gs&dti=348410141858743&hc_location=group

Join us *Today* @ 2 PM (ET) on Facebook Live for a Question and Answer session with Minister O'Regan on Pension for Life.


----------



## Rifleman62

Starting now. 

Lets see if it really is the public asking. ;D


----------



## TCM621

Not on facebook. Can anyone give me a recap?


----------



## newwifey

You can still access it via the link above.  If you aren't on facebook, you just need to enter the letters/numbers on the security screen and you can view.
Personally, I felt nothing substantive since the announcement in December.


----------



## Teager

I'd like to point out that the issue of those that get CIA/CIAS has been answered. If you are receiving those benefits you will NOT loose any of that money or receive less. For CIAS if you receive it you will be grandfathered in. So if you haven't applied for it and believe you could be entitled to it I suggest applying for it before April 1 2019. 

Now it does seem that the CIAS will cease come 1 Apr 2019 and be replaced with the 1% annual increase for loss of carrer progresion.


----------



## Rifleman62

So there we have it. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-town-hall-edmonton-1.4515822
*
Some veterans want more than Ottawa can afford, Trudeau tells town hall* - 1 Feb 18
_Prime minister's cross-country tour wraps up with one final town hall in Nanaimo, B.C., Friday_

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government is fighting some Canadian veterans in court because they are asking for more than the federal government can afford. 

"Why are we still fighting certain veterans groups in court? Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now," Trudeau said, answering a question from a veteran, who said he lost his leg to an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan, during a town hall meeting on Thursday evening in Edmonton. 

Some people booed that answer, forcing Trudeau to calm the crowd. 

"You are asking for honest answers," he said to the crowd at MacEwan University Sport and Wellness. "The old veterans' charter involved lump-sum payments and very little in the way of services."

A veterans' group said earlier this week it is taking its fight over recent changes to the pension system to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Another veteran said that he did not think Trudeau was really listening to veterans and that his government's restoration of the lifelong pension was a "lacklustre" effort at best.

Before the old lifetime pension was eliminated in favour of a lump sum payment, veterans could have received up to $2,700 per month. Under the restored pension plan the Liberal government introduced, the maximum a wounded soldier would ever see is $1,150 per month.

"I have pledged, and I did pledge and I will continue to pledge that I will do right by you," Trudeau said. "The changes that we've made to our support for veterans are based around recognizing where we went wrong before."

Trudeau said his government's monthly pension amount is lower because it takes into account the cost of services offered by the federal government including post-traumatic-stress treatment and psychological care, support for caregivers and family members who look after wounded veterans and job training for those who can still get back into the job market.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Did you honestly expect a different answer. At least now, you know where you stand with this government.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

> Trudeau said his government's monthly pension amount is lower because it takes into account the cost of services offered by the federal government including post-traumatic-stress treatment and psychological care, support for caregivers and family members who look after wounded veterans and job training for those who can still get back into the job market.



Is this so unreasonable?  From the perspective of a taxpayer, I would suggest that it is not.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

No, it is not unreasonable. Pensions, plus lump sums, plus program spending have to be looked at as a total package, vice each in isolation.

But, many veterans thought they heard the Liberals promise them something else entirely during the last election. That was the basis of my comment.

The reality is, there is a limit to to the political usefulness of veterans. This Government has calculated that they have extracted the maximum usefulness, for the taxpayer resources they have expended.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> So there we have it.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-town-hall-edmonton-1.4515822
> *
> Some veterans want more than Ottawa can afford, Trudeau tells town hall* - 1 Feb 18
> _Prime minister's cross-country tour wraps up with one final town hall in Nanaimo, B.C., Friday_
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government is fighting some Canadian veterans in court because they are asking for more than the federal government can afford.
> 
> "Why are we still fighting certain veterans groups in court? Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now," Trudeau said, answering a question from a veteran, who said he lost his leg to an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan, during a town hall meeting on Thursday evening in Edmonton.
> 
> Some people booed that answer, forcing Trudeau to calm the crowd.
> 
> "You are asking for honest answers," he said to the crowd at MacEwan University Sport and Wellness. "The old veterans' charter involved lump-sum payments and very little in the way of services."
> 
> A veterans' group said earlier this week it is taking its fight over recent changes to the pension system to the Supreme Court of Canada.
> 
> Another veteran said that he did not think Trudeau was really listening to veterans and that his government's restoration of the lifelong pension was a "lacklustre" effort at best.
> 
> Before the old lifetime pension was eliminated in favour of a lump sum payment, veterans could have received up to $2,700 per month. Under the restored pension plan the Liberal government introduced, the maximum a wounded soldier would ever see is $1,150 per month.
> 
> "I have pledged, and I did pledge and I will continue to pledge that I will do right by you," Trudeau said. "The changes that we've made to our support for veterans are based around recognizing where we went wrong before."
> 
> Trudeau said his government's monthly pension amount is lower because it takes into account the cost of services offered by the federal government including post-traumatic-stress treatment and psychological care, support for caregivers and family members who look after wounded veterans and job training for those who can still get back into the job market.



This is the type of comment that can cause members of the CAF to ponder whether or not the required responsibilities and obligations of service in the CAF can be afforded by individuals any further.


----------



## Rifleman62

> ....more than we are able to give right now," Trudeau said.....



That's really "rich" considering the spending of this government.

https://twitter.com/ottawaspends


https://globalnews.ca/news/3600967/tracking-federal-government-spending/
*
NOTEBOOK: How we use Twitter to keep track of thousands of federal government spending announcements* - David Akin - 15 Jul 17

These days, your federal government is spending about $310 billion a year and you may wonder, where on earth does all that money go?

The answer is: Most of it is transferred to provinces and territories; a big chunk is transferred to individuals in the form of old age benefits, child benefits, EI payments and the like; a sizeable chunk is used to pay down the debt; a lot is used to pay 250,000 civil servants, 80,000 or so Canadian Forces members, and around 30,000 members of the RCMP.

Believe it or not, that still leaves lots left over for politicians to hand out. And whenever a politician hands out some money, you can bet there will be a press release so that one and often several politicians can be seen taking some credit (or blame) for handing out the money.

Here’s an MP, Dan Ruimy from B.C., who proudly tweeted a picture of himself handing out a novelty cheque drawn on the federal government’s bank account:(at link)

I’ve been told by PMO sources, by the way, that MPs are largely discouraged from using novelty cheques in funding announcements.

In any event, since March, 2009 whenever a spending announcement is made, I’ve been tracking key details from each spending announcement in a database I maintain. I use that database from time to time to  pull summary information about spending announcement patterns.

For example: As of this writing, the Ontario riding of Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing, held by New Democrat MP Carol Hughes, has had more projects funded during the life of this Parliament than any other riding in the country. Our database has logged 97 different projects in Hughes’ riding worth a combined $54.5 million.

By contrast, just two projects worth a combined $787,669 were approved in which all the money would be spent in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau‘s Montreal riding of Papineau.

Thanks to this database, we can tell you that nearly two years into the 42nd Parliament, the Trudeau government has made about 6,800 different funding announcements letting MPs take credit for a combined $31-billion in spending on everything from a new sewer line to a new roof on a curling club to new research labs to new affordable housing projects.

By contrast, the Harper government, over the entire length of the 41st Parliament, made 7,308 spending announcements for a combined $45 billion.

And every single one of those 13,000-plus spending announcements in the last Parliament and the current one is in my database.

And just about all of those are also on Twitter via a special Twitter account I’ve set up called @OttawaSpends.

Every time I put a spending announcement in my database, I also tweet it out. If you follow @OttawaSpends, you too can track every federal government spending announcement. For example, that photo of the gazebo, er, picnic shelter, pictured above with Liberal MP TJ Harvey was tweeted out like this:(at link)

Continued at link.


----------



## PuckChaser

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Is this so unreasonable?  From the perspective of a taxpayer, I would suggest that it is not.


 I'd suggest to you that if the government cannot afford proper compensation, then they cannot expect unlimited liability from CAF members. Especially true considering we are required to give up charter rights as a condition of enrollment. Charter rights which are apparently worth at least  $10.5m.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd suggest to you that if the government cannot afford proper compensation, then they cannot expect unlimited liability from CAF members. Especially true considering we are required to give up charter rights as a condition of enrollment. Charter rights which are apparently worth at least  $10.5m.



 :goodpost: :ditto:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Is this so unreasonable?  From the perspective of a taxpayer, I would suggest that it is not.



In my opinion, it wouldn't be, if the PM wasn't throwing fistfuls of cash around the world and taking care of everyone else except Canadians. The amounts that have been given away are ridiculous, bankrupting and not good fiscal management by the government. I'm sure the money he's payed out to terrorists could've fixed some problems at VAC. Ironic that he takes care of our enemy, but not your own Veterans that fought that enemy.

What would happen if servicepeople said the same thing. "Sorry, I can't afford to lose any limbs or lives right now. You're asking too much. I don't have enough to go around."

The questions, probably, would have slid by, except the PM can't think on his feet and talk at the same time. He just said that Servicepeople that get injured are unimportant in the grand scheme and even though we can't afford to take care of them, we'll spend millions in court to fight them and maintain the same degrading status quo and still send them out to get injured and die. Only to come home to a great big "Fuck You".

He's just told the Canadian public that Canada can't afford an Armed Forces. If you can't pay the money to help fix the people you broke, you shouldn't have broken them in the first place.

And I'm a taxpayer also, and those taxes come out of the monies I receive from VAC.


----------



## Pieman

They say they can't afford it, but does anyone know an accurate number of what VAC is actually asking for? (Total cost, not just how much each service member might get in hand) Hard to assess the validity of Treudeu's statement otherwise.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Pieman said:
			
		

> They say they can't afford it, but does anyone know an accurate number of what VAC is actually asking for? (Total cost, not just how much each service member might get in hand) Hard to assess the validity of Treudeu's statement otherwise.



I'm sure someone figured that out in a BN or something similar when they looked at the options. Of course, it's probably labeled as cabinet confidence so you can't ATI it.

I like how they just take a lump sum and spread it across a fixed term with no interest adjustment. I'm sure financially you are better off taking the lump sum and investing it in something; at least a savings account would give you a 1% or so a year to partially track with inflation.


----------



## Teager

I'm having trouble understanding why the services offered by VAC are now being taken into account in total cost of what Veterans receive? To me it's like an insurance company saying well we provided you with services such as rehab and mental health so instead of the million payout we will only be giving you $200k.

If VAC is providing services the cost of those services should not come into play for the pension or lump sum amount when the government compares costs of the old pension system.


----------



## prairefire

Attached is my calculation of what the new pension for life looks like. It is based on the VAC infographic at http://www.veterans.gc.ca/GCWeb/pdf/Retro/PFL-infographic.pdf

The devil will be in the regulations however based o their example, if it does not change the amount will bring us about half way to the old pension. I have a foot in both pension and disability awards.

Of course there may be all sorts of details which the bureaucrats may put in place that will make all this moot............

Enjoy the possibility..............


----------



## PuckChaser

If the number at the bottom right is what I should be getting per month, I'm super excited at my $46. I can buy a case of the premium beer. Then again, I'm only 10% with lump sums in 2013 and 2015.


----------



## Rifleman62

> Trudeau said his government's monthly pension amount is lower because it takes into account the cost of services offered by the federal government including post-traumatic-stress treatment and psychological care, support for caregivers and family members who look after wounded veterans and job training for those who can still get back into the job market.



I think this is all smoke and mirrors. First the new "pension" in 2019 is another promise before an election just like the other one. Why, why will it take two years to draft regulations and legislation? If Vets are such a priority it could be done in 12 months. Drop tools. do this.

All these other new benefits the PM/Minister are touting are budgeted at x million dollars and are added to the the total of what VAC is providing. Thus VAC big budget figures. The question is:are all these benefit budgets being expended? How easy are they to access?

If these benefits are not utilized then it's just a carrot not eaten and a method to say: Here voters, we gave Vets all this and they didn't use it, but we are giving Vets millions of dollars.


----------



## AirDet

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If these benefits are not utilized then it's just a carrot not eaten and a method to say: Here voters, we gave Vets all this and they didn't use it, but we are giving Vets millions of dollars.



TRUE!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The governments idea of we're spending millions on programs, so they don't have to give you cash, is a ludicrous concept. Perhaps even Canada's own 'Chelsea Pensioners'? (which would be a great gig, but not available to all)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Pensioner


----------



## Teager

Bill C-74 Pension for Life.

CVA has isolated the Veterans Affairs part from the rest of the Bill.

http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/VACDND_Services-Benefits/?p=1197


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Teager said:
			
		

> Bill C-74 Pension for Life.
> 
> CVA has isolated the Veterans Affairs part from the rest of the Bill.
> 
> http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/VACDND_Services-Benefits/?p=1197



Cheers Teag


----------



## meni0n

So for those that already received a lump sum, does anyone know if we'd have the option to take whatever the top up monthly payment will be in a lump sum as well? I rather get it all in one shot than get 130$ a month....


----------



## Teager

meni0n said:
			
		

> So for those that already received a lump sum, does anyone know if we'd have the option to take whatever the top up monthly payment will be in a lump sum as well? I rather get it all in one shot than get 130$ a month....



I know the answer is no but I can't exactly remember why but it has to do with technically receiving the full amount already.


----------



## meni0n

Hmm that's unfortunate. They do mention in the documentation for the new pension for life that members will have the option to take a lump sum so I was hoping that those that will be getting the recalculated benefit will also get a lump sum option.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## cowboy628

For the  record. I cant confirm that previous pay outs are excluded.


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> So for those that already received a lump sum, does anyone know if we'd have the option to take whatever the top up monthly payment will be in a lump sum as well? I rather get it all in one shot than get 130$ a month....



There should be something other. That $130 is kind of a kick in the junk. This whole thing is, but I would be pissed off if they don't allow some kind of lump sum. That 130, won't even pay a cable bill, and I read a $46? Wtf. 


Just remember this come election time, educate friends and family on this nightmare and false promises. 

The sad part, myself at 102%, and my parents, I think grade 2? On the old, my parents recieved more then if I waited and dumped all claims in on April 1st.


----------



## upandatom

So, It was a bit Slow today at work. 
Also My "issues" make me want to be in the know, and know whats exactly expected. 
I redid the Spreadsheet that another member did. Thank you for that, 

I matched up the steps and followed them as per the infographic. Which the math does work out, 

I have multiple payouts, with 4 different DAs for different injuries. HAd to go to VRAB several times, and some reassessments. 
In the Sheet are notes, The only things you need to fill out are

Everything else should Auto Fill;

1. Payment date (Month/Day/Year)
2. Payment award(amount)
3. Disability Amount %
4. Age in years
5. Life Expectancy according to VAC
6. Additional Payment, the extra payment that was made to match/ 


I did find it is equal amount of money paid out between the current and the PFL if under Hybrid, 
Hope this helps.


----------



## TCM621

upandatom said:
			
		

> So, It was a bit Slow today at work.
> Also My "issues" make me want to be in the know, and know whats exactly expected.
> I redid the Spreadsheet that another member did. Thank you for that,
> 
> I matched up the steps and followed them as per the infographic. Which the math does work out,
> 
> I have multiple payouts, with 4 different DAs for different injuries. HAd to go to VRAB several times, and some reassessments.
> In the Sheet are notes, The only things you need to fill out are
> 
> Everything else should Auto Fill;
> 
> 1. Payment date (Month/Day/Year)
> 2. Payment award(amount)
> 3. Disability Amount %
> 4. Age in years
> 5. Life Expectancy according to VAC
> 6. Additional Payment, the extra payment that was made to match/
> 
> 
> I did find it is equal amount of money paid out between the current and the PFL if under Hybrid,
> Hope this helps.



that was great thanks


----------



## meni0n

I sent a message on my vac to find out about taking the lump sum option, still waiting for an answer. I also did the calculation with the excel sheet, thanks for that. For the amount that I will get, I would really rather get it in one payment than getting a ridiculous 100$ a month....


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> I sent a message on my vac to find out about taking the lump sum option, still waiting for an answer. I also did the calculation with the excel sheet, thanks for that. For the amount that I will get, I would really rather get it in one payment than getting a ridiculous 100$ a month....




Most of us would prefer it. I think. At my age, I could probably near double that with proper investing. Or I could buy a rental property and make more per month off the rent then the 1150. 

$100-$500 a month for most that qualify under this won't have a major positive influence on their lives. 

The new "veteran" that would receive these benefits is majority under 50, not retired, probably had or was forced to find work postmedicall 

I am curious, 
Once it's released and rolling, with trudexit mostly occuring in 2019, how will the conservatives improve this, 
And

What is the additional pain and compensation, I have not seen anything that dictates what qualifies for it. 

Ie
I'm at 102%,
Recieved  CIA at lowest grade.
1 at 65%
1 at 10%
1 at 20%
1 at 5%

VRAB for one more, back, go figure back is the hardest to do because of the way military doctors write. 

And a review to increase my hearing because it's in a steady decline since 2012, and the latest puts me at an almost deaf in my right ear. 

I work from home, medical reasons, I see physio, mental health and RMT regularly, hope fully soon a chiro. 

Are they judging it like the CIA? Because thats a joke. Your CM decides on that, if you have one, and what happens when you are forced out of the Rehab program and your CM removed? Some intake case manager decides on it, that doesn't know you or your situation. 

If anyone has insight on the Additional please post it?

TIA


----------



## Teager

The additional Pain and compensation benefit is the CIA. They will be eliminating the time servered criteria and will be based on the medical criteria that exists now. The benefit will also be tax free Grade 1 being $1500 Grade 2 $1000 and Grade 3 $500. 

Whatever your grade is now will be protected on coming into force and they cannot bump you down a grade if they bumped you up due to the time served criteria.

Also if DEC the CIA supplement will be eliminated and a 1% per year added to your pay until you would have reached 20 years service. If you have 20 or more years then your SOL.


----------



## meni0n

Got a reply from VAC saying that it would be possible to take it as a lump sum. Once all the calculations are done, we'll be provided with a worksheet and a choice of how to take it.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> Got a reply from VAC saying that it would be possible to take it as a lump sum. Once all the calculations are done, we'll be provided with a worksheet and a choice of how to take it.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk



Beautiful. 
Will be nice to have that and take control of it. Invest and retire early.


----------



## Kokanee

Thanks for the spread sheet, not counting my eggs before they hatch, but nice to get a ballpark of what to expect month to month or lump sum....


----------



## upandatom

Kokanee said:
			
		

> Thanks for the spread sheet, not counting my eggs before they hatch, but nice to get a ballpark of what to expect month to month or lump sum....



No I agree. I have found it best with VAC to know the math prior. Go in with a level head, and an understanding of the steps behind. 
Ie-
 Right now they won't give me a reassess even though I'm over 100% and they have me as 8% hearing loss, but in effect I'm deaf now in my right ear. Which, adds to the disability and puts me at 65% for PTSD and a combined 50% for others, which according to the intake case manager would put me at a grade 2 for CIA.


----------



## cowboy628

Question with regards to grade 1,2,or3. Is everyone grade 1,2,or3 or are some not graded and fall by the wayside. Anyone know or seen anything in print. Thanks in advance.


----------



## upandatom

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> Question with regards to grade 1,2,or3. Is everyone grade 1,2,or3 or are some not graded and fall by the wayside. Anyone know or seen anything in print. Thanks in advance.



A few things,
1. you have to apply, which if you don't know about it or have a shitty case manager you will.never know
2. It depends on the amount of physical disability, and if it affects working
3. It also will adjust via mental health. 
4. I forget the right way, but starts at one level and increases to a third, with varying degrees of compensation. (Which is currently taxed) and next year not. 

So-called if someone getting PSC pension, as well as APSC, they are near the old charter threshold. Which seems it will be the liberal war cry when it comes to voting. 
But- very few veterans, that actually use it will be getting PSC, and full grade APSC.


----------



## cowboy628

Thanks will have to look into it.


----------



## Amos

upandatom said:
			
		

> A few things,
> 1. you have to apply, which if you don't know about it or have a shitty case manager you will.never know
> 2. It depends on the amount of physical disability, and if it affects working
> 3. It also will adjust via mental health.
> 4. I forget the right way, but starts at one level and increases to a third, with varying degrees of compensation. (Which is currently taxed) and next year not.
> 
> So-called if someone getting PSC pension, as well as APSC, they are near the old charter threshold. Which seems it will be the liberal war cry when it comes to voting.
> But- very few veterans, that actually use it will be getting PSC, and full grade APSC.



How about physical and mental? I just assumed that because I had 21 years in, I would be put at grade 3 regardless how severe confition is.


----------



## Teager

GreenArmychick said:
			
		

> How about physical and mental? I just assumed that because I had 21 years in, I would be put at grade 3 regardless how severe confition is.



If you meet the medical requirements for whichever grade level you fall into then your time in won't matter.


----------



## cowboy628

So are the requirements for grade level printed? They must be know to some one if they use the grade in examples.


----------



## Teager

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> So are the requirements for grade level printed? They must be know to some one if they use the grade in examples.



http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/2126


----------



## cowboy628

Thx


----------



## cowboy628

Well after reading the requirements for the different grades 1,2,3 its obvious to me the not many will be getting any of that money. I guess it's just going to be a vote against the Libs for broken promises. We were lied to last election and wont happen the next one. :rofl: to all those that were in ABC crowd.


----------



## Kokanee

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> :rofl: to all those that were in ABC crowd.



I don't think there is any need to start making political jabs; governments are like diapers, they should be changed regularly after all lest they become too stinky.


----------



## cowboy628

I see nothing wrong with it (jabs). They were to stupid to know they were being used. P.S 
Sorry if you were one of them. Have a great night


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Move on. The ABC group have nothing to do with the thread.

They are only a concern for those that listened to them.

Milnet Staff


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> If you meet the medical requirements for whichever grade level you fall into then your time in won't matter.



The highest payment really is hospitalized and can't do 90% of daily.routine on your own


----------



## upandatom

So, recently read in several spots. Liberals could call a snap election while NAFTA and other boondoggle mistakes are still fresh and not fully understood what's going on. 

So if that happens, and liberals are out, what do you think will happen with the PFL? 
Will it stand, and then the big topic will be the review of the new PFL and how it could be improved?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

upandatom said:
			
		

> So, recently read in several spots. Liberals could call a snap election while NAFTA and other boondoggle mistakes are still fresh and not fully understood what's going on.



Please tie your statement to the thread subject. If the connection is specious, kindly delete it and move it to politics.

Tanks!
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## upandatom

recceguy said:
			
		

> Please tie your statement to the thread subject. If the connection is specious, kindly delete it and move it to politics.
> 
> Tanks!
> Milnet.ca Staff



Done, phone hit send/reply before I was done typing.


----------



## Teager

upandatom said:
			
		

> So, recently read in several spots. Liberals could call a snap election while NAFTA and other boondoggle mistakes are still fresh and not fully understood what's going on.
> 
> So if that happens, and liberals are out, what do you think will happen with the PFL?
> Will it stand, and then the big topic will be the review of the new PFL and how it could be improved?





> Responding to a question about the prospect of the government calling a federal election a year early, Trudeau said: "It has never been in our plans and it is not in our plans, there will be no federal election this fall."



https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/pm-dispels-murmurings-of-snap-fall-election-1.4055515


----------



## Halifax Tar

Teager said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/pm-dispels-murmurings-of-snap-fall-election-1.4055515



Of course he also said that 2015 would be our last FPTP election... So really who knows  :dunno:


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/pm-dispels-murmurings-of-snap-fall-election-1.4055515



Shows Aug 16th, Before the NAFTA nightmare.


----------



## Teager

I was simply quoting what came from the horse's mouth. Plus NAFTA can be in constant negotiation for a long time no matter the "deadlines" Trump gives.

Back to the topic tho if an election were held I honestly don't think there would be any change to the PFL at least not by April 1. If we have learned anything it's that any changes to veterans benefits are very slow and take years.


----------



## dunlop303

I've gotta be missing something why am I the only one excited about the half million dollar est cheque I have coming in April? 

Considering I thought I got all I was going to get cash wise bring rated at 100 now. Help me get mad here guys what's up with this deal that's bad? Aside from the monthly payment option, ya that's not livable but in this case we are just discussing the pain and suffering benefit. It's not intended to live on that's what the main program is set up for, (min of 48k/yr).

They are obviously encouraging the lump sum options which is high risk for a million reasons , but now that half a million dollar cheques are being issued multiplys the risk.

Again dont get me wrong, Im excited for a big cheque I had no idea was coming. My question is why aren't you? (No attitude, honest question as I think I'm missing something).

Thanks


----------



## upandatom

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> I've gotta be missing something why am I the only one excited about the half million dollar est cheque I have coming in April?
> 
> Considering I thought I got all I was going to get cash wise bring rated at 100 now. Help me get mad here guys what's up with this deal that's bad? Aside from the monthly payment option, ya that's not livable but in this case we are just discussing the pain and suffering benefit. It's not intended to live on that's what the main program is set up for, (min of 48k/yr).
> 
> They are obviously encouraging the lump sum options which is high risk for a million reasons , but now that half a million dollar cheques are being issued multiplys the risk.
> 
> Again dont get me wrong, Im excited for a big cheque I had no idea was coming. My question is why aren't you? (No attitude, honest question as I think I'm missing something).
> 
> Thanks



Don't get me wrong. I am too. It's a total life changer to hopefully recieve it. I just have a hard time believing the current government. 

They would push for the lump sum, it probably has some strings attached like that's it's amd that's all, you won't get future adjustments for interest rates etc. Which I'm fine with as I could make more and have it more useful in investing in my LIRA and pension.


----------



## dunlop303

Jesus, if they went back on it at this point. That would be ugly. Though they really should have kept all this advertising in house untill parliamentary approval. But again, thinking like a politician tell the vets there getting hundreds of thousands in pretty colorful ads, then put it on parliament to reject it. Lol pretty smart power move.


----------



## upandatom

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> Jesus, if they went back on it at this point. That would be ugly. Though they really should have kept all this advertising in house untill parliamentary approval. But again, thinking like a politician tell the vets there getting hundreds of thousands in pretty colorful ads, then put it on parliament to reject it. Lol pretty smart power move.



I couldn't fathom the uproar


----------



## meni0n

The bill did pass right? At least according to the timeline on VAC's site it says it should have been passed by now.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> The bill did pass right? At least according to the timeline on VAC's site it says it should have been passed by now.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk



Should be, but i Just read that Trudeau is pushing return of parliament back a week or so from the 17th.


----------



## dunlop303

Just a sanity check here, if we chose under the pain and suffering compensation a lump sum payment, it is NOT the full value of payments for the projected life expectancy, rather it is 100% of the disability award maximum at that time? Just caught that in the fine print.


----------



## bdcasey916

Dunlop303, where in the fine print did you see that? Just to have a look at the reference?


----------



## dunlop303

On the factsheet for the pain and suffering compensation, under payments / lump sum options:


----------



## dunlop303

On the factsheet for the pain and suffering compensation, under payments / lump sum option:

"Lump sum:
The highest possible lump sum payment of the PSC  would be the same as the maximum Disability Award payment on the day before coming into force."

So I read that as roughly  a 150k kick to the B's taking the lump sum 360k (or whatever it is on April 1 2019) vs 500ish. Why can't a dollar just equal a dollar with these people. So mathematically speaking the lump sum is a good deal if you plan on living 26 years or less. ($1,150 x 12 = $13,800 x 26 = $360k.)

Conservatively, I'd expect a minimum life expectancy rating of 75 years. So from next April that's 32 years, x  13,800 = $441,600 translated to a government discount of $81,600. And if you kick in the year you were actually hurt it gets worse from there. My personal number was 512k after deducting what I already received. This calculation just shows the 1:1 difference.

The main takeaway here is the lump sum is worth 26years. Which you can't beat because they take your life expectancy into account. 

Sigh, now I get why guys are frustrated. And why there is next to nothing published explaining the lump sum option.


----------



## RobA

So just to clarify, let's say you're 100%, you're entitled to take the lump sum of 100% as of April 2019? $360,000? 

Would that subtract the DA money you've already been paid? i.e. using the example they give their (100% in 2006 = $250,000) would you be paid $110,000 if you elected lump sum? Or is it a simple calculation of, everyone who got 100%, regardless of what thye've been paid already, will get $360,000?

Also, with regards to the lump sum being less money overall, that's true, but don't forget the time value of money. If hypothetically, one took that money and plowed it into an investment that returned 5%/year (which is an entirely reasonable expectation of RoI simply by buying the entire stock market) you'd have about $1.2 million in 25 years.


----------



## dunlop303

RobA said:
			
		

> So just to clarify, let's say you're 100%, you're entitled to take the lump sum of 100% as of April 2019? $360,000?
> 
> Would that subtract the DA money you've already been paid? i.e. using the example they give their (100% in 2006 = $250,000) would you be paid $110,000 if you elected lump sum? Or is it a simple calculation of, everyone who got 100%, regardless of what thye've been paid already, will get $360,000?
> 
> Also, with regards to the lump sum being less money overall, that's true, but don't forget the time value of money. If hypothetically, one took that money and plowed it into an investment that returned 5%/year (which is an entirely reasonable expectation of RoI simply by buying the entire stock market) you'd have about $1.2 million in 25 years.



In regards to funds already received, using their own examples if your already received over 300k your still getting funds worth more than 360k IF you take the monthly option. They, do not in ANY examples of those who have previously received settlements even mention lump sums. And VAC will not touch these question with a 30 foot stick right now. Ive tried three times. lol.

I agree with your summation, yes. The lump sum is worth more than 80k in my hands over the next 26 years than it would be to receive it drip by drip.
However, they lie to our faces and It makes me angry because this is business, im a finance guy and its painfully obvious. They describe, if you really search why the discrepancy in funds has much more value in the Monthly option. Their BS justification is that they hope it acts as a incentive for Vets to choose the monthly option as its more secure. BS!!!

And you just spelled it out in your response, its the EXACT opposite, the incentive is always to take the lump sum as long as its relatively close. This is just a way for them to pocket 100k for every full claim payout.

Im a big boy, dont tell me your stealing my lunch money because you want me to lose weight, just kick me in the nuts, take my 20 bucks and say what are you going to do about it. I'll find the exact quote, its disgustingly dishonest.


----------



## dunlop303

Quotes and everything!! lol

"Under the New Veterans Charter, disabled veterans could receive a lump-sum payment of up to $360,000 – an amount that is rarely awarded – depending upon the severity of their injury, plus a myriad of other benefits that target specific issues.

Under the new plan, those who retire with a service-related injury will qualify for a life-time tax-free pension for pain and suffering of as much as $1,150 per month. In addition, if they are having difficulty re-establishing their lives because of a severe and permanent injury, they may receive an additional $500, $1,000, or $1,500 a month, depending on the extent of their impairment.

Both of those benefits can be taken as a lump-sum award to a maximum of $360,000. But, if a veteran is severely disabled at a young age and lives into their 80s, the accumulated monthly payments will far outstrip the lump sum.

"We very much want people to take up the monthly option," Mr. O'Regan said. "We wanted to make it lucrative enough that they would want to."

Those veterans who have already received a lump-sum award still qualify for the life-time pension, but the money they have been given will be deducted when the government calculates their monthly payment."

Source;

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-offers-lifetime-pensions-for-veterans-but-parity-with-old-pension-act-not-achieved/article37398444/


----------



## RobA

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> In regards to funds already received, using their own examples if your already received over 300k your still getting funds worth more than 360k IF you take the monthly option. They, do not in ANY examples of those who have previously received settlements even mention lump sums. And VAC will not touch these question with a 30 foot stick right now. Ive tried three times. lol.
> 
> I agree with your summation, yes. The lump sum is worth more than 80k in my hands over the next 26 years than it would be to receive it drip by drip.
> However, they lie to our faces and It makes me angry because this is business, im a finance guy and its painfully obvious. They describe, if you really search why the discrepancy in funds has much more value in the Monthly option. Their BS justification is that they hope it acts as a incentive for Vets to choose the monthly option as its more secure. BS!!!
> 
> And you just spelled it out in your response, its the EXACT opposite, the incentive is always to take the lump sum as long as its relatively close. This is just a way for them to pocket 100k for every full claim payout.
> 
> Im a big boy, dont tell me your stealing my lunch money because you want me to lose weight, just kick me in the nuts, take my 20 bucks and say what are you going to do about it. I'll find the exact quote, its disgustingly dishonest.



Yep, couldn't agree more.

IMO, their refusal to address the lump sum question IS an answer. The more I think about it, I'm about 95% sure if we opt for the lump sum, they WILL deduct whatever we've been given already from it.

In the case of the 100% in 2007 example, the vet would have been given $290,000 so far (give or take). That's $250k for the initial DA, and another $40k in April 2017 by the top up to the DA. So this vet if opted for the lump sum would (in my opinion) only get another $70,000. That's not peanuts, but it's a far cry from $360,000 and makes the lifetime pension the preferable option.

Why do I think they'll deduct monies already paid? Because think about it: if the vet above DOES get $360,000, their total payout from VAC would be $650,000. But a vet injured in 2020 would top out at $360,000. I would be shocked if VAC would create such a 2 tier system, considering the main reason they're scrambling to change the NVC is BECAUSE of the complaints that they've already created a 2 tier system.

I'd be shocked if they didn't deduct money already paid out via the DA when factoring the lump sum of the new PFL.


----------



## TCM621

One of the biggest issues I have with the NVC is that the myriad of benefits is confusing. one vet may get one set of benefits while another gets a different set for a similar injury and it is hard to figure out why. The old system was simple X percent disability gets Y monthly pension.

Now all this talk about the new pension for life is confusing me even more. No one has any information and if the ETB is any indication no one will have any idea when it is implemented either.


----------



## upandatom

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> Quotes and everything!! lol
> 
> "Under the New Veterans Charter, disabled veterans could receive a lump-sum payment of up to $360,000 – an amount that is rarely awarded – depending upon the severity of their injury, plus a myriad of other benefits that target specific issues.
> 
> Under the new plan, those who retire with a service-related injury will qualify for a life-time tax-free pension for pain and suffering of as much as $1,150 per month. In addition, if they are having difficulty re-establishing their lives because of a severe and permanent injury, they may receive an additional $500, $1,000, or $1,500 a month, depending on the extent of their impairment.
> 
> Both of those benefits can be taken as a lump-sum award to a maximum of $360,000. But, if a veteran is severely disabled at a young age and lives into their 80s, the accumulated monthly payments will far outstrip the lump sum.
> 
> "We very much want people to take up the monthly option," Mr. O'Regan said. "We wanted to make it lucrative enough that they would want to."
> 
> Those veterans who have already received a lump-sum award still qualify for the life-time pension, but the money they have been given will be deducted when the government calculates their monthly payment."
> 
> Source;
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-offers-lifetime-pensions-for-veterans-but-parity-with-old-pension-act-not-achieved/article37398444/




It's a cop out. 
If someone takes a monthly, more money in their pocket. 
If someone takes the full lump sum. Then that's huge. For me it's 300 and change (110%, and I get CIA) I work, I have to. I have twins. And a mortgage. And life. I'd take the lump sum in a second and invest into my house(mortgage and Reno's) and retirement. Id put a chunk into a retirement package and build interest off it and pay myself. 

It should be clear but, I'm 35, worked it out to 300000k and change for the lump sum, or 572 a month. 572 would help, but not benefit my life at all. 

The 300000, would be a life saver. Retirement would be a non issue, house would be mortgage free. That benefits me more. Then I wouldn't have to work 50 plus hours a week,  I'd be able to seek actual help. I don't get time off for my medical appts so I can't make most of them. 


I'm certain it will come to numbers. How many are in the same boat as me? Some people I know will get $36 a month, barely a case of beer. Will they be paid out? If they get full lump sum why can't I? 

It builds a new two tier system again.


----------



## meni0n

So didn't the excel spreadsheet someone posted earlier address the deduction of funds already paid out? VAC life expectancy for a veteran is 72 years old. Given that i will be due 100$ a month for the next 36 years, I'd rather take that as a lump sum

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> So didn't the excel spreadsheet someone posted earlier address the deduction of funds already paid out? VAC life expectancy for a veteran is 72 years old. Given that i will be due 100$ a month for the next 36 years, I'd rather take that as a lump sum
> 
> Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk



Exactly, what did the lump sum workout too? 43000?
To be honest, Id even take a 10% hit on it to get paid out the $330 000 then receive the monthly.


----------



## meni0n

Yea It was about 43000$. It makes no sense in taking 100$ a month.


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> Yea It was about 43000$. It makes no sense in taking 100$ a month.



No. You could make 25 a month off interest


----------



## dunlop303

The spreadsheet was incorrect, it assumed the monthly amounts were equal to the lump sum payments. It is correct for the month calculations. You will not be penalized for your previous lump sum if you in your 30's because it is calculated over years remaining In Your life. However if you lump sumed at 45-55 yes you will take a hit. As I wrote above, you need to have more than 26 years remaining in life expectancy to get a decent lump sum. But one thing I did miss, and this is a plus. We are also entitled to take the additional pain and suffering compensation as a lump sum, with is also worth 360k. I'm going to call.my newly assigned CM and see if I can't squeeze a straight answer out of these people.


----------



## bdcasey916

Where are you seeing the reference material for the APSC being a lump sum? The info sheet on their website states that it is payable monthly over a lifetime.  There must be something in the bill that I can't find.  Thanks!


----------



## Teager

I think it would be best to cite sources when talking about possibly getting large sums of money. If it's not true then it just spreads misinformation among the veteran community. It can spread fast and then when things take effect you get a bunch of pissed off vets thinking they were gonna get a chunk of change when in fact that was never the case.


----------



## bdcasey916

Makes total sense.  After I did my last post I looked at the news article posted above me.  The minister does make the statement that 'both' PSC and APSC have the potential to be paid as a lump sum.  However, when you read VAC's infographics and read through Bill C-74, it only makes reference to the PSC being a lump sum.  So there is either something the minister is not telling us, or he doesn't have his fuzzy ducks in a row


----------



## meni0n

Teager said:
			
		

> I think it would be best to cite sources when talking about possibly getting large sums of money. If it's not true then it just spreads misinformation among the veteran community. It can spread fast and then when things take effect you get a bunch of pissed off vets thinking they were gonna get a chunk of change when in fact that was never the case.


Well i asked using myvac if it would be possible to take the new monthly payments as a lump sum and the answer was yes, although it is not the first time I was given wrong information. Also, can someone explain what types of impairement would qualify for APSC. Let's say I'm unable to do any PT except light walking, does that fall under APSC.. Can't get any information about this anywhere.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## Teager

meni0n said:
			
		

> Well i asked using myvac if it would be possible to take the new monthly payments as a lump sum and the answer was yes, although it is not the first time I was given wrong information. Also, can someone explain what types of impairement would qualify for APSC. Let's say I'm unable to do any PT except light walking, does that fall under APSC.. Can't get any information about this anywhere.



The only concern I have is that the VAC employee misunderstood that your a vet who already received a lump sum and was referring to any new claims going forward April 1.

APSC will have the same criteria as the CIA minus the time served part come April.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/2126


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-no-apology-from-veterans-minister-for-attacking-vet-who-library-of/
*
Library of Parliament analysis sides with veteran in pension spat with Veterans Minister Seamus O’Regan* - 27 Sep 18 - GLORIA GALLOWAY G & M

A Library of Parliament analysis has found that veterans' advocate Sean Bruyea is correct in saying disabled vets who qualify for the government’s new pension program will get less compensation than those who fall under the old Pension Act, despite Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan’s angry rebuttal to the contrary. Conservatives are demanding that Mr. O’Regan apologize for going on the offensive in print and in court after Mr. Bruyea disparaged the Liberals’ planned Pensions for Life program in an Ottawa newspaper in early February.

Mr. Bruyea argued that the new Pensions For Life, which take effect next year and will go to veterans who applied for benefits in 2006 or later, will fall short of what is given to veterans such as him, who applied before 2006 and fall under the old Pension Act. Even though VAC bureaucrats told Mr. O’Regan’s office that Mr. Bruyea’s numbers were largely correct, the Minister fired back two weeks later with a column of his own accusing Mr. Bruyea of “stating mistruths,” making “numerous other errors” and writing to suit his “own agenda.”

Conservative MP Erin O’Toole, a former veterans affairs minister, told Mr. O’Regan during the daily Question Period in the House of Commons on Thursday that during his time in government, he did not always agree with Mr. Bruyea but he always showed him respect “and I always knew that he knew his stuff.” Mr. O’Toole said Mr. O’Regan must apologize for attacking Mr. Bruyea in public and for sending two government lawyers and an intern to fight the disabled veteran in small-claims court when he launched a suit – subsequently dismissed by a judge – that accused the Minister of defaming him. But Mr. O’Regan did not apologize.

“Ensuring that veterans and their families know about the benefits and programs available to them is essential to my job as Minister of Veterans Affairs,” he told the Commons. “It’s why we are working so hard to explain Pensions for Life as clearly as we can.” When the Library of Parliament was asked earlier this year by Independent Liberal Senator Percy Downe to compare the benefits that will be received by newer veterans under the Pensions for Life with those of the Pension Act veterans, the Library found that Mr. Bruyea’s facts were accurate and his argument was legitimate.

The Library analyzed an example provided on the Veterans Affairs website of a corporal named Lauren, who was medically released at the age of 25 after being declared 100 per cent disabled and who is projected to die at the age of 83. It found that if Lauren applied for benefits in 2006 or later, she would receive a lifetime payout under the Pensions for Life of *$4,714,554.43*. But she would receive *$6,264,625.99* if she had applied before 2006 and fell under the old Pension Act.

The Minister’s office said Thursday that the methodology and scenarios used by the Library of Parliament are different than what was presented online by the Veterans Affairs department, which could lead to different outcomes, and that all of department’s assumptions and calculations were accurate.

In his column responding to Mr. Bruyea, the Minister criticized him for not taking into account the Income Replacement Benefit (IRB), which will pay 90 per cent of the prerelease salaries of veterans who are unable to work as a result of service-related injuries, when he calculated how much disabled veterans would receive under the new Pensions for Life. Mr. Bruyea said he specifically excluded the IRB in his calculation because they are available at the same rates to all disabled veterans, even those like him who fall under the old Pension Act. What is different about the old plan and the new one, he said, is that Pension Act veterans will receive significantly more money for pain and suffering. The Library of Parliament analysis agrees with Mr. Bruyea.

When Mr. Bruyea took the matter to small-claims court in May seeking $25,000 for the damages he said the Minister’s rebuttal did to his reputation, government lawyers convinced a judge to throw out the case on the basis of Ontario’s Protection of Public Participation Act. The act is an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law created to discourage the use of litigation to stifle debate in the public interest. Mr. Bruyea plans to appeal.


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-veterans-association-calls-pension-for-life-program-a-betrayal-of/
*
Veterans association calls Pension for Life program a ‘betrayal’ of community* - 1 Oct 18

The umbrella organization for Canada’s veterans groups maintains former military personnel are angry that the federal government’s new lifetime pensions will not meet what they thought was a Liberal campaign promise to bring compensation for Canada’s newer disabled vets in line with what is paid to those who claimed benefits before 2006.

Brian Forbes, the chair of the National Council of Veteran Associations, has conducted an analysis of the Liberal government’s proposed Pension for Life program, which will be available starting next year to veterans who applied for benefits in 2006 or later. The report of that assessment will be released at a veterans' summit in late October. It concurs with the findings of veterans’ advocate Sean Bruyea, who says disabled veterans, such as him, who applied for benefits prior to 2006 and fall under the old Pension Act will get more than those who qualify for the Pension for Life. Mr. Forbes calls the new program a “betrayal of the commitment to Canada’s veterans’ community.”

Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan has held more than 40 town halls with veterans to extol the merits of the proposed pension plan. He also engaged in a public fight, both in print and in the court, with Mr. Bruyea after Mr. Bruyea wrote a column in the Hill Times, an Ottawa newspaper, in February that disparaged the new program. The minister “has been touring the country trying to market his Pension for Life concept and it’s caused a great deal of anger in many circles of the veterans community because he’s trying to sell something that is not truly correct,” Mr. Forbes said in a telephone interview last week. “And what it comes down to is the government is going to try to suggest to veterans at the summit coming up that they have somehow satisfied an election commitment of 2015, and we just don’t agree.” In advance of the last federal election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised that, if the Liberals won, the lifetime pensions for disabled vets, which disappeared in 2006 when the New Veterans Charter became law, would be re-established.

Mr. Forbes says in his analysis that “it was clearly understood that this commitment would specifically address the basic discrimination” that exists between what is provided under the Pension Act and what will be provided under the program that replaced it. John Embury, a spokesman for the minister, said Friday that the objective of the new plan is to move away from the Pension Act in which “the government cuts you a cheque and says good luck. There were shortcomings in what was offered under the Pension Act that our new programs and supports have addressed.” The new plan offers better career transition assistance, better education and training, and increased investments in veterans' mental health, Mr. Embury said.

But Mr. Forbes says in his analysis that “financial security remains a fundamental necessity to the successful implementation of any wellness or rehabilitation strategy.” He looked at two scenarios, one in which a veteran suffers a severe and permanent impairment, and one in which he or she is moderately impaired. In the case of the severe impairment, he says, a veteran who qualified for the Pension for Life will get $3,650 a month, but the Pension Act veteran who has no spouse or children will get $6,118 a month. And those Pension Act vets who are married and have kids will get even more. In the case of a veteran who is determined to be just 35-per-cent disabled, according to the Forbes analysis, the Pension for Life veteran will get $402.50 monthly, while the single Pension Act vet will get $977.20.

Opposition members stood in the House of Commons on Thursday and Friday last week to demand Mr. O’Regan apologize for his treatment of Mr. Bruyea. Even though the Veterans Affairs Department said the numbers used by the veterans' advocate in his February column were largely correct, the minister fired back with a column of his own accusing Mr. Bruyea of “stating mistruths” and writing to suit his “own agenda.” Mr. Bruyea took the matter to small-claims court in May seeking $25,000 for the damages, he said the minister’s rebuttal did to his reputation, government lawyers persuaded a judge to throw out the case on the basis of Ontario’s Protection of Public Participation Act. The act is an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law created to discourage the use of litigation to stifle debate in the public interest. Mr. Bruyea plans to appeal.


----------



## CampCricket

I'm not sure what to do. I was just awarded another 5% today. Over the last 12 years I received multiple awards. I received 5% in 2007 for an injury, I got hurt in AFG in 2010 and led to an award of another 30% in 2014 and another 60% in 2015. Today I received a letter for a reassessment awarding me another 5%. I am now at 100% as of today... My dilemma is - how do I accept this award? I am 47 years old - do I continue to lump sum it - or do I put it on small payouts so that in April of next year - it can get rolled into pension for life? 

From what I can tell - I might get an extra $320 or so each month for life starting April 2019 for my previous awards (based on amount received and when received - and the difference between those 2 had the amount been provided over those years in a pension for life calculation)... But I am only guessing... That would be the case. So should I opt for a smaller amount now - in the hopes that I live another 26 plus years? That puts me at 73 with the average veteran death age of 74 and for a female - the average life expectancy is 84? 

I just have no clue right now on how to fill out that financial worksheet... Like to hear other people's thoughts on this.


----------



## dunlop303

As long as VAC determines your remaining life expectancy to be 26;years or greater your choice on how to receive this 5 percent will not effect how you qualify for the post April 2019 benefits. You will be able to choose between lump sum or monthly payments


----------



## Fishbone Jones

They had everything for my reassessment end Feb 18, I'm 32 weeks into a 16 week turnaround. I think they're waiting for me to die. :waiting:


----------



## blacktriangle

They are waiting for us ALL to die.

 :nod:


----------



## dunlop303

Well atleast they don't save any dimes as we sequentially off our selves. Goes to the families.


----------



## dunlop303

Also, guys don't spazz, of course we are entitled to our lump sums, read their own case studies. It's elementary. But, 100 percent paid does not equal according to pain and suffering, that's where adjudication comes in..

All in saying is, if you have exactly 26 years left to live and you happen to get a full pay rate. It's the only fair shake.

Please correct me if anyon e has better info


----------



## RobA

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> Also, guys don't spazz, of course we are entitled to our lump sums, read their own case studies. It's elementary. But, 100 percent paid does not equal according to pain and suffering, that's where adjudication comes in..
> 
> All in saying is, if you have exactly 26 years left to live and you happen to get a full pay rate. It's the only fair shake.
> 
> Please correct me if anyone has better info



I don't have any better info, and I certainly hope you're right, but barring specific wording from VAC I'm really skeptical that any lump sum would NOT take into account any previous monies paid with regards to the $360,000 max payout.

In my case, I'm 32, and assessed at 100% in 2008, so I've been paid roughly $300k in total. I can't imagine VAC would pay me ANOTHER $360k, bringing me to a total of $660k, when a veteran who gets 100% in, say, 2020 would only be paid $360k.

To be clear, I'm not going off any info whatsoever, and I'm happy to be wrong, but just knowing how VAC works, I'd place it at about 90% chance that they DO deduct monies paid. So, in my case, my lump sum should be roughly $60k, even though I'm assessed at 100%.


----------



## blacktriangle

They have an example of what happens on this VAC page:

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pension-for-life

They are approaching things like an insurance company would. It even seems to say that women will receive less than men because they tend to live longer. I'm willing to bet a couple actuaries made some nice coin from working on this. 

 :2c:


----------



## RobA

Their case studies don't have anything to say about the lump sum though, other then that it's an option. It doesn't say anything about methodology, or monies deducted etc.

But considering the case studies for the monthly payment DO deduct payments for monies already paid, it stands to reason that the lump sum calculation does too. As well, I recall Seamus O'Reagen saying something like "we want to incentivize vets to take the monthly payment".

In my case, giving me the option to take either $360,000 lump sum or $880/mo is NOT incentivizing me to take the monthly option. On the other hand though, giving me the option of $60,000 lump sump or $880/mo definitely is.


----------



## Teager

What we all should be worried about is the new system they are making for the PFL. Let's all just hope we receive the benefits we're entitled to in April. Don't want another phenoix issue and a bunch of vets go unpaid for x amount of time.

I fear stories of oh sorry the computer must have missed bringing your name over into the new system and we will now have to confirm all benefits that you have. If you have your letters of approval please send them in to assist us in moving this along as quickly as possible. If you don't have them expect to wait 6 months minimum. Thank you for your patience as we work through this.


----------



## upandatom

RobA said:
			
		

> Their case studies don't have anything to say about the lump sum though, other then that it's an option. It doesn't say anything about methodology, or monies deducted etc.
> 
> But considering the case studies for the monthly payment DO deduct payments for monies already paid, it stands to reason that the lump sum calculation does too. As well, I recall Seamus O'Reagen saying something like "we want to incentivize vets to take the monthly payment".
> 
> In my case, giving me the option to take either $360,000 lump sum or $880/mo is NOT incentivizing me to take the monthly option. On the other hand though, giving me the option of $60,000 lump sump or $880/mo definitely is.



I would expect something along this line, except maybe not as harsh. Id say they would take at least a 15% cut on it, I am in the same boat, where I was set to 110% in 2016, and expecting possibly 317k, but only $572 a month. To be honest, I would even take the 15% on that.....as opposed to the $572 a month. I can do more with the lump sum then the 572 a month.


----------



## RobA

For sure in that scenario, the lump sum is by far the better option. Thatd be sweet if they only took a small bit of what youve been paid, but Ive never known VAC to work like that. I would bet the $360k is the total LIFETIME a vet would get. So in your case since you got your lump sum relatively recently, youd be prrtty close to that limit.  Dunno what youve been paid out already but lets say its $350,000, Ill bet theyd offer you the monthly $500-$600 OR a "lump sum" option of $10,000.

Cause its the same issue I brought up: if they paid you ANOTHER, say, $300,000 then youre lifetime payout would be $650,000+. Meanwhile, a future vet who gets injured at 100% in 2019 would only get the max $360,000. I cant see VAC doing that. Then theyd just go through this whole mess again with the NEXT generation of vets feeling they get short changed compared to earlier vets. Right now, the issue is is pre 2006 vets on the NVC get a much less valuable compensation package then post 2006 vets. Thats what this whole thing is trying to address. If they paid us out ANOTHER $300,000+, theyd just be creating a third tier: vets pre 2006 get the best deal, vets 2006-2019  get the next best, and vets post 2019 get the worst. Seems likely that a system where a vet who got injured in 2019 @ 100% gets $360,000 lump sum, while a vet injured in 2017 @ 100% walks away with $700,00 would just create MORE problems for VAC of the type this whole thing is trying to solve.

If they were going to give vets at 100% ANOTHER $300,000+ they would raise the new max to $600,000+ and just top everyone up.

Anytime VAC is vague about a specific issue (like theyre being regarding the lump sum. Tons of detail about how the PENSION is calculated but not a peep about the LS) it alnost always being purposefully vague because they trying to frig vets over and want to keep the uproar down.

Just my $0.02, I hope Im wrong. I dont think guys should be mentally spending their $300,000+ checks just yet though, at least until we get something concrete from VAC.


----------



## Teager

I'd say RobA is right. It already states you get the choice of the $360k or the monthly amount for life. I don't see any extra lump sum coming to those who already received one just a possible monthly amount.


----------



## Howie1

I'm pretty sure based on the examples on the Vac pages of the different scenario's it already shows people getting way over the 360k amount. From what it looks like they are completely different pots of money and would have to be, otherwise there would be no money left for monthly payments until a person reaches age 83/84. From the way it looks to me and correct me if i am wrong, the 360k was only for the NVC people. Going forward everyone will get the same amounts as anyone who got a lump sum already. They will just get less in the monthly amounts/ lump sum than those injured and getting this benefit going forward. Just their case examples show this to be the case. As far as the lump sum payment option, Their Q+A faq clearly describes the option to take a lump sum.

Taken from the Vac Q+A Page:

PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION
WHAT IS THE PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION?
The Pain and Suffering Compensation is designed to recognize and compensate CAF members and Veterans for the pain and suffering they experience due to a disability caused by a service-related illness and/or injury. It is not intended to replace income, which is why the PSC is not taxable.

Based on the member or Veteran's assessed extent of disability, the PSC benefit potentially entitles Veterans up to a maximum of $1,150 a month for life. Veterans and members can also opt to cash out their payments at any time. The intent is to provide the choice of how to receive this benefit, while encouraging recipients to continue the monthly payment.

IF YOU CHOOSE THE MONTHLY PAYMENT OPTION BUT WANT TO TAKE THE MONEY AS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT AT A LATER DATE, ARE YOU ABLE TO?
Yes. You can choose to cash out the benefit and receive the balance owing, which is the difference between the monthly amount already paid and the applicable lump sum amount.


----------



## Rifleman62

Long post with examples to illustrate the argument @: 

https://army.ca/forums/threads/129243/post-1552404.html#msg1552404

Hopeful formatted the article correctly for readability.


https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/10/25/betrayal-commitment-canadas-veterans-community/172111
*
OPINION: Feds betraying commitment to veteran community* - By BRIAN N. FORBES - OCT. 25, 2018

The disabled veteran community expected the re-establishment of the Pension for life option would not just attempt to address the concerns of a small minority of disabled veterans, but would include a recognition of all disabled veterans in need of financial security.


----------



## Quirky

> disabled veterans in need of financial security.



I’m curious, by comparison, what other government sectors or private companies give out disability payments, whether it be lump sum or monthly, for employees injured on the job? 

Just to give an example, an ER nurse gets struck by an idiot patient and can’t work any more. He/she can’t come to work anymore but unlike the military, doesn’t get paid a full salary waiting for medical release or whatnot. Another example, I come to work and permanently injure my wrist/hand and can’t do my job and will ultimately be medically released. This entire process will take months if not years, meanwhile I continue to collect a full salary with benefits until my release date. When I release I get a $X dollar amount with all the perks like paid education. 

After all said and done I get a nice dollar payout or monthly payment and paid for schooling. The nurse can’t work anymore and now has an injury limiting further employment elsewhere. Why do I deserve more money and support than they do?


----------



## Teager

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’m curious, by comparison, what other government sectors or private companies give out disability payments, whether it be lump sum or monthly, for employees injured on the job?
> 
> Just to give an example, an ER nurse gets struck by an idiot patient and can’t work any more. He/she can’t come to work anymore but unlike the military, doesn’t get paid a full salary waiting for medical release or whatnot. Another example, I come to work and permanently injure my wrist/hand and can’t do my job and will ultimately be medically released. This entire process will take months if not years, meanwhile I continue to collect a full salary with benefits until my release date. When I release I get a $X dollar amount with all the perks like paid education.
> 
> After all said and done I get a nice dollar payout or monthly payment and paid for schooling. The nurse can’t work anymore and now has an injury limiting further employment elsewhere. Why do I deserve more money and support than they do?



http://www.wsib.on.ca/WSIBPortal/faces/WSIBArticlePage?fGUID=835502100635000336&_afrLoop=12950140814000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26_afrLoop%3D12950140814000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26fGUID%3D835502100635000336%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D175az6b0zg_4

That shows how VAC has moved more towards this model. Before VAC bumped up the lump sum they were paying less than what courts awarded those injured at jobs in Canada. VAC bumped it up to the minimum amount courts award.


----------



## Stoker

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’m curious, by comparison, what other government sectors or private companies give out disability payments, whether it be lump sum or monthly, for employees injured on the job?
> 
> Just to give an example, an ER nurse gets struck by an idiot patient and can’t work any more. He/she can’t come to work anymore but unlike the military, doesn’t get paid a full salary waiting for medical release or whatnot. Another example, I come to work and permanently injure my wrist/hand and can’t do my job and will ultimately be medically released. This entire process will take months if not years, meanwhile I continue to collect a full salary with benefits until my release date. When I release I get a $X dollar amount with all the perks like paid education.
> 
> After all said and done I get a nice dollar payout or monthly payment and paid for schooling. The nurse can’t work anymore and now has an injury limiting further employment elsewhere. Why do I deserve more money and support than they do?



"We are not the public service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people." 

General Rick Hillier


----------



## Quirky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> "We are not the public service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."
> 
> General Rick Hillier



Departments responsible for killing people should be better compensated than those, who on a daily basis, save people.


----------



## Teager

Killing people is only one aspect of the CAF. Today the CAF is very diverse and performs many different functions including life savings ones. The majority of those functions come with dangers to your life or serious injury and you can be ordered to do it. 

You can refuse unsafe work in most jobs here in Canada no one can order you to do it.


----------



## RobA

Howie1 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure based on the examples on the Vac pages of the different scenario's it already shows people getting way over the 360k amount. From what it looks like they are completely different pots of money and would have to be, otherwise there would be no money left for monthly payments until a person reaches age 83/84. From the way it looks to me and correct me if i am wrong, the 360k was only for the NVC people. Going forward everyone will get the same amounts as anyone who got a lump sum already. They will just get less in the monthly amounts/ lump sum than those injured and getting this benefit going forward. Just their case examples show this to be the case. As far as the lump sum payment option, Their Q+A faq clearly describes the option to take a lump sum.
> 
> Taken from the Vac Q+A Page:
> 
> PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION
> WHAT IS THE PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION?
> The Pain and Suffering Compensation is designed to recognize and compensate CAF members and Veterans for the pain and suffering they experience due to a disability caused by a service-related illness and/or injury. It is not intended to replace income, which is why the PSC is not taxable.
> 
> Based on the member or Veteran's assessed extent of disability, the PSC benefit potentially entitles Veterans up to a maximum of $1,150 a month for life. Veterans and members can also opt to cash out their payments at any time. The intent is to provide the choice of how to receive this benefit, while encouraging recipients to continue the monthly payment.
> 
> IF YOU CHOOSE THE MONTHLY PAYMENT OPTION BUT WANT TO TAKE THE MONEY AS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT AT A LATER DATE, ARE YOU ABLE TO?
> Yes. You can choose to cash out the benefit and receive the balance owing, which is the difference between the monthly amount already paid and the applicable lump sum amount.



I understand all this, but all they say here is that you have the OPTION to take a lump sum, not how much that would be or what the formula is. For my case, I'm at 100% and been paid $300,000 already. So if I opt for the lump sum and only get $60,000 (to bring me to the new max of $360,000) that's still a "lump sum" from VAC's perspective. Of course, from MY perspective, getting $360,000 is a lot different from getting $60,000.

 I hear your points, and they have merit,  but the two main things I keep coming back too that I can't get away from are:

1) On the examples they gave for the new PFL formula, they deduct monies ALREADY PAID as a disability award under the NVC. To me, that strongly suggests they will deduct monies already paid under the NVC for the lump sum. Those are two completely different polices (deducting money previously paid vs not deducting it), and it would be unusual to have two different polices for the same benefit. Remember, whether you opt for the pension, or opt for the lump sum, they are both the same benefit:the PSC. I don't think VAC is going to have one policy (deduct NVC money already paid) for one version of the PSC but an entirely different policy (DON'T deduct NVC money already paid) for another version of the same benefit. That's not how VAC works.

2) If you read the article just posted criticizing the new PFL, the main issue is that it perpetuates the unequal benefits of the different system and creates two tiers of vets: those injured pre 2006 and those injured post 2006. If they just started us all with a clean slate and, it would make that dynamic WORSE. There would be huge gaps between the compensation different vets get. In my case, if I opted for the lump sum and that was $360,000, my total compensation would be around $660,000. Meanwhile, a veteran injured in 2019 with the exact same rating (100%) who opted for the lump sum would only get $360,000. That's almost half as much compensation. Not even the existing system (pre 2006 vs post 2006) is THAT inequitable. Considering this whole PFL thing only came about to address existing inequities in the compensation system, it would seem odd to implement a "solution" that makes the system MORE inequitable. I know if I were the vet injured in 2019 and only getting $360k as a lump sum, I'd be pissed if guys like me existed who got the same injury but got paid well over $600,000.

I keep saying this, but I DO hope I'm wrong. It's just that we tend to be predisposed to believe what we WANT top believe, and in this case, I think the case that someone in my position option for the lump sum will be getting around $50-$60,000 to be far stronger then that I would get $360,000, even though I want it to be otherwise.

I think it's important to tamp down expectations because while $60,000 is pretty sweet, it isn't life changing money the way that $360,000 would be, and if guys get carried away and start planning their future based on that, they may be in for a major disappointment.


----------



## TCM621

RobA said:
			
		

> 2) If you read the article just posted criticizing the new PFL, the main issue is that it perpetuates the unequal benefits of the different system and creates two tiers of vets: those injured pre 2006 and those injured post 2006.



It creates a lot more than 2 tiers. You have vets pre and post 2006. You have vets with a single "severe impairment" and vets with the same level of disability who have multiple claims. You have uninjured vets who retire willingly who get all their new salary and their pension and you have injuries vets who can't work, who get their pension deducted from their benefits. 

The single biggest complaint I can see is that they have created a convoluted system which virtually guarantees that vets will get less than they are entitled to simply because they don't know what they are entitled to. In my experience, the front line VAC staff doesn't understand it either so they can't help vets.


----------



## dunlop303

Here, this should settle your collective anxiety. I know, I feel the same way in waiting to get blind sided but aside from the fact they don't talk about the lump sums, I have confi they can both be taken as a lump sum. I've attached one of their case studies, of course it's monthly payment based, but it explains the totals, she was Injured and rated at 100 percent for injuries received on training op nanook, this was in 2014. So you know she's already gotten a lump sum ie, her 100 percent rating.

Now, looking on the left side of the page I attached it shows you these ARE individual and seperate, let's call them accounts. Her monthly payment for pain and suffering will be $1,110, VAC assess her life expectancy to be 82, being 25 it's valued at 689,600 over her lifetime. Or, she can take 360k lump sum.
She will also receive as you can see, grade 2 additional pain and suffering compensation lifetime valued at 599,600. Or 360k. Many of us have confirmed this benefit is also available in lump sum, although most of us are rated at grade 1, ie, 609 a month currently going down to 500 non taxable when this all kicks in, so simple 50% ish deduction plus age difference means most will not get the full 360 for additional pain rather something in the mid to high one hundred thousand range.

The case studies are the easiest way to understand that just because we received our "pension" these new benefits are just that, new, and seperate.

The whole purpose is financial security for life. This is huge guys.


----------



## dunlop303

My attachment didn't show up, but for here scroll down and click on Lauren's well being journey it's a PDF W


----------



## dunlop303

Sorry , it's a PDF with. All the financial details http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pension-for-life


----------



## RobA

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> Here, this should settle your collective anxiety. I know, I feel the same way in waiting to get blind sided but aside from the fact they don't talk about the lump sums, I have confi they can both be taken as a lump sum. I've attached one of their case studies, of course it's monthly payment based, but it explains the totals, she was Injured and rated at 100 percent for injuries received on training op nanook, this was in 2014. So you know she's already gotten a lump sum ie, her 100 percent rating.
> 
> Now, looking on the left side of the page I attached it shows you these ARE individual and seperate, let's call them accounts. Her monthly payment for pain and suffering will be $1,110, VAC assess her life expectancy to be 82, being 25 it's valued at 689,600 over her lifetime. Or, she can take 360k lump sum.
> She will also receive as you can see, grade 2 additional pain and suffering compensation lifetime valued at 599,600. Or 360k. Many of us have confirmed this benefit is also available in lump sum, although most of us are rated at grade 1, ie, 609 a month currently going down to 500 non taxable when this all kicks in, so simple 50% ish deduction plus age difference means most will not get the full 360 for additional pain rather something in the mid to high one hundred thousand range.
> 
> The case studies are the easiest way to understand that just because we received our "pension" these new benefits are just that, new, and seperate.
> 
> The whole purpose is financial security for life. This is huge guys.



Thanks for that. Color me skeptical still, but that does provide a strong argument. It DOES seem incomprehensible that they would offer the choice between two pensions totalling over $1 million lifetime value and....$60,000 (in my case).

In fact, if they offer two lump sums for each (totally $770,000 max) they probably still WOULD reduce by the amounts already paid, and we'll still do well. In my case, even if they subtracted the $300k they've already paid me, I culd still be looking at north of $450,000. I'd be ok with that.


----------



## dunlop303

Exactly, the gap is just too big. Now, they do take into account what you have already received but it does not apply to pain and suffering. That calculation applies to the Pension for Life amount ie. fund number 3. Which cannot be taken in lump sum. 

Now we wait,


----------



## BDTyre

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but where does it outline the criteria used to determine if you are eligible for a monthly amount if you've already received a disability award. Is it based on the percent you were awarded (as they use two people at 20% as an example) or is it based on type of injury or how it affects quality of life? Apologies if I did miss it...I just can't seem to see it now.


----------



## dunlop303

It doesn't, your not missing it. Based on vauge answers from VA, they have nkt


----------



## Teager

Well this article should prove there's no big chunk of money coming. All of this PFL costs the government nothing and saves them money 



> Ottawa to save money with new veterans' pension plan, despite saying it will cost billions
> 
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER
> OTTAWA
> PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 6, 2018 UPDATED 2 MINUTES AGO
> 
> 
> The federal government will save nearly $500-million over five years as a result of its move away from lump-sum payments to monthly pension payments for life for disabled veterans. But Ottawa is not committing to using those savings to close gaps so that all former military personnel are compensated equally.
> 
> The lifetime pensions, a Liberal campaign promise, have been targeted by critics who say they fail to bring equality to a system in which veterans who applied for benefits in 2006 or later get less compensation than those who applied in earlier years.
> 
> When the pensions were unveiled four days before Christmas last year, the government said they “represent an additional investment of close to $3.6-billion to support Canada’s Veterans.”
> 
> And on Jan. 31, Seamus O’Regan, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, told the House of Commons: “With our recent announcement of a Pension for Life, this government’s total investment in veterans in 2½ years is $10-billion” – a figure that includes the $3.6-billion for the pensions.
> 
> But the “additional” money for Pensions For Life, which come into effect in April, 2019, will be not be spent any time soon.
> 
> In fact, the government predicts in its most recent budget it will save $84-million in the next fiscal year and more than $100-million in each of the next four years as a result of the pensions program.
> 
> The savings are emphasized in the accompanying regulations, which were published in August.
> 
> Treasury Board guidelines dictate that a cost-benefit analysis looking forward 10 years must be included in regulations for any new federal program, unless that program will cost less than $1-million annually or $10-million total. But there was no cost-benefit analysis attached to the Pensions For Life regulations.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Canada explained in an e-mail to The Globe and Mail that the department was not required to produce anything more than the analysis for programs that will have a low financial impact.
> 
> Disabled veterans who applied for benefits prior to 2006 receive regular pension payments. The New Veterans Charter replaced those pensions with a system based, in large part, on lump-sum payments that now pay up to a maximum of $365,4000 – payments that vets said were far less than the value of the regular payments for pre-2006 veterans.
> 
> The government says the lifetime pensions that start next year will pay newer veterans who choose them over lump-sum payments as much or more than the value older veterans receive in their regular payments. But veterans advocates, including Sean Bruyea, have done calculations to show that a significant disparity will still exist – and a Library of Parliament analysis has confirmed that is the case.
> 
> Had the government given the money that will be saved “directly to veterans, it not only would have granted parity to veterans, but it would also have fulfilled their Liberal campaign promise to reinstate lifelong pensions” like those offered under the Pension Act, Mr. Bruyea said.
> 
> “The political rhetoric around spending $3.6-billion on this program is really quite farcical,” he said. “At the very least, the costs of these new programs are cancelled out by old programs. This is a cost-savings venture for these guys."
> 
> Officials with Veterans Affairs explained in a recent phone call with The Globe and Mail that the government says the new regular-pensions program will cost an estimated $3.6-billion because, over the lifetimes of disabled veterans who are currently in the system or of those who are injured within the next five years, the pensions are predicted to collectively pay out that much more than the lump-sum payments.
> 
> The $3.6-billion is money that has been earmarked for future benefits for veterans, and the amount will change, the officials say, as new veterans apply for benefits and as others die.
> 
> But, because the lump-sum payments will stop, “we will draw down less cash” on an annual basis, said Christina Hutchins, the department’s director-general of finance. “So, when I net that out, the overall cost is insignificant.”
> 
> Mark Campbell, a severely disabled Afghanistan veteran who was part of a group that took the government to court in an unsuccessful bid to achieve parity with the Pension Act veterans, said he was surprised to find out that the Pensions for Life will not cost the government anything, “when the Minister has been trumpeting all of the new monies that have been injected into veterans' benefits, Pensions For Life being the centrepiece."
> 
> And Phil McColeman, the Conservative critic for veterans affairs, said it’s clear that the Pensions For Life are a “shell game” and that “there is no real additional money being added into the system.”
> 
> Mr. O’Regan accused Mr. Bruyea in a column in an Ottawa newspaper called The Hill Times earlier this year of “stating mistruths,” making “numerous other errors,” and writing to “suit his own agenda” when the veterans' advocate asserted that the Pensions For Life would still leave newer veterans with less compensation than those who applied for benefits before 2006.
> 
> But bureaucrats with Veterans Affairs have said Mr. Bruyea’s figures are largely correct. And Mr. Bruyea is now taking Mr. O’Regan to court, seeking $25,000 for the damage he says the minister’s column has done to his reputation.






https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-government-will-save-money-on-veterans-new-pensions-for-life-despite/?fbclid=IwAR0ktoKtNqjur9X2cRMNShP4a9Y7zcofA14MQCQJOw2RQvbqzh4GbVYoFhg


----------



## meni0n

This is weird because their own factsheet states that it would be possible to take PSC as a lump sum. 

www.veterans.gc.ca/GCWEB/pdf/Factsheets/PSC-2017.pdf

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## dunlop303

It reads depressing but its not, the reason they do not need the cash up front is because there calculation again assumes everyone will take monthly payments. And with that logic They can spread that one out literally over 20-30 years. Its just dumb accounting to finance the full sum just to slowly pay it out over three decades when the money can be used elsewhere. The lump sums will be case by case.

Last time I spoke to my CM they were being trained in how to calculate the individual cases to the new benefits. Last time she said she could provide actual amounts, Monthly vs Lump sum (for pain and suffering, not income replacement ect)... for comparisons so its not a last minute decision in January.

They usually sand bag a bit so I followed up again today, that was mid sept. I'll share responses with the group.

PS, that article is click bait, sure if you only account for the monthly payments vs a lump sum disability award of course its cheaper over 5 years. The exact opposite argument can be made if the comparison is made over 20 years... ex; %100 disability lump sum today - 360,000 vs. %100 disability monthly payments - using lauren's case study again as an example - Pain and suffering; 1,110 per month x 12 = 13,320 x 5 years = 66,600. Plus additional pain and suffering; 960 per month x 12 = 11,520 x 5 years = 57,600 = 124,200 so terrible reporting to anger the mob says how awefull, they are spending in this case, 235,800 less in 5 years! they are cutting %66 percent of costs! 

Come on, that is the exact opposite purpose of this. using my life expectancy the real number is 13,320 x 33 = 439,560 + 11,520 x 33 = 380,160 = total of 819,720 ie an increase of 459,720 / 227% of what its worth today. Even the lump sum option, is about 185% more. 

Crunch the numbers and read between the lines. Because the reporters definitely will not do the math. I get it, im used to getting disappointing news too but they have put out too much information to ignore. Read the case studies it will help clarify, I wish they would have just been transparent about the lump sum options, that's where they lost everyone's confidence.

Remember a huge part of this is income replacement, which is not available in lump sum and in laurens case is 3,820 per month / 2.469 million over her life. They don't have to spend all of that upfront because its a monthly benefit, the reporter biased the heck out of her article by conveniently not mentioning that. They have to budget the full amout ie 10 billion, but thats over 30 years of monthly payments.


----------



## dunlop303

You can, but not the income replacement which makes up the majority of the budget. and the lump sums are capped at 360k vs lifetime amounts of 800k +++ so they save over 50% of their budget per person for those who opt for lump sums, but, they need to budget for the worst case scenario - where we all opt for the lifetime payments.


----------



## dunlop303

To be fair though, I have to admit. This only really add's significant money at 100% disability ratings, anything under 55-65% may have disappointing conversion rates.
They really need to be forthcoming on their calculation methods, and what the qualifier is for the additional pain and suffering. I really hope its not the critical injury benefit, because the qualification for that is a joke. I was in role 3 Kandahar for three weeks, in landshtule germany for almost a month, and in a local hospital for a week before being sent home to be taken care of by my parents for 4 months, and rated at 100% but I didn't qualify,, as role three and landshtule are not considered critical care facilities... - are you f'ing kidding me, role three is gruesome on a good day. Great doctors, but that's where the most serious cases go, and the ones they cant stabilize go to landshtule! W  T   F

Venting complete, that one still pisses me off.


----------



## Teager

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> To be fair though, I have to admit. This only really add's significant money at 100% disability ratings, anything under 55-65% may have disappointing conversion rates.
> They really need to be forthcoming on their calculation methods, and what the qualifier is for the additional pain and suffering. I really hope its not the critical injury benefit, because the qualification for that is a joke. I was in role 3 Kandahar for three weeks, in landshtule germany for almost a month, and in a local hospital for a week before being sent home to be taken care of by my parents for 4 months, and rated at 100% but I didn't qualify,, as role three and landshtule are not considered critical care facilities... - are you f'ing kidding me, role three is gruesome on a good day. Great doctors, but that's where the most serious cases go, and the ones they cant stabilize go to landshtule! W  T   F
> 
> Venting complete, that one still pisses me off.



I would appeal that decision. I went to role 3 and Landshtule and then hospital/rehab hospital for a few months but qualified and I'm 66%. Sounds like someone didn't understand your application very well.


----------



## dunlop303

Thanks Teager, I sent this off to BPA - last time I worked with them we changed VA's entitlement decision, hoping for the same:

Good Afternoon, 

I am looking for assistance on appealing what I believe was an unjust denial of the Critical Injury Benefit due to criteria interpretation discretion.
My injury was immediate, severe, and was treated in three medical facilities, two of which I would consider critical care however VAC disagrees - Role III medical facility in Kandahar to which I was medivaced from the site of my Tank IED strike location via Blackhawk as a Priority Alpha, after approximately a week I was transferred to Landshtule Germany, also which I believe should be considered critical care. I spent roughly two weeks there, upon repatriation I spent roughly an additional week in the Pembroke Hospital. After which I was transported to my parents home so they could provide care until I was able to move under my own power / dress / buy and prepare food / this was over three months in duration. I am rated at %100 for a combination of Physical; Broken Pelvis, Coccyx and Diffuse Axonal Injury (tears between the white and grey matter in the brain) which VAC later labelled as TBI and Mental; Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Generalized Anxiety and Depression Disorder. I am on medication for the pain in my pelvis to this day, the brain injury is causing a multitude of numbness complications - for which I cannot claim due to my rating of %100, as well as the permanent mental health challenges. 

These injuries were immediate, severe and in most cases permanent. Common sense vs interpretation of entitlement


----------



## RobA

dunlop303 said:
			
		

> It reads depressing but its not, the reason they do not need the cash up front is because there calculation again assumes everyone will take monthly payments. And with that logic They can spread that one out literally over 20-30 years. Its just dumb accounting to finance the full sum just to slowly pay it out over three decades when the money can be used elsewhere. The lump sums will be case by case.



Yeah, they have absolutely no idea how many ppl will choose the lump sum, and since the pension is nominally more money, they'll obviously do the accounting based on everyone taking the pension, whether they do or not. So of course they'll save money on paper, they're only accounting for $12,000/yr for every vet @ 100%.

I'm about 50/50 on this idea that we're due life changing money in April, but nothing in that article suggests otherwise made me more pessimistic.


----------



## RobA

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Is it based on the percent you were awarded (as they use two people at 20% as an example) or is it based on type of injury or how it affects quality of life?



Both, really. The % number is the one they'll use to determine your compensation. But the % number is based on the type of injury/quality of life


----------



## prairefire

This may seem like a silly question but is the PFL and Pain  and Suffering Compensation the same thing or 2 different benefits?


----------



## Teager

prairefire said:
			
		

> This may seem like a silly question but is the PFL and Pain  and Suffering Compensation the same thing or 2 different benefits?



Yes, they are the same. The PFL is the pain and suffering compensation given for life as a monthly payment or if one chooses a lump sum.


----------



## brihard

Teager said:
			
		

> Yes, they are the same. The PFL is the pain and suffering compensation given for life as a monthly payment or if one chooses a lump sum.



More accurately, Pain and Suffering Compensation is a portion of the Pension For Life (PFL).

PFL is an umbrella descriptor that includes two broad categories: Non taxable financial benefit in recognition of disability (the Pain and Suffering Compensation plus the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation), and taxable financial benefit in replace lost income, the Income Replacement Benefit.

The PSC is derived directly from your disability percentage.

The APSC stacks on top of PSC. It has three grades, and is granted based on assessment of your barriers to recovery... It’s basically the new version of Permanent Incapacitation Allowance.

The Income Replacement Benefit is basically the new version of Earnings Loss Benefit. It’s for people who cannot make a meaningful income and face barriers to reestablishment. It will replace 90% of your pre-release income, and will be reduced by any pension you receive, and by employment income after your first $20,000.

Basically, the Pension Act did not distinguish between those who could still work and make money and those who could not. Strictly %disability based. The new benefits offer less to people who are still able to work and earn an income, and in many cases offer more to those who are the most seriously injured and cannot.


----------



## upandatom

Howie1 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure based on the examples on the Vac pages of the different scenario's it already shows people getting way over the 360k amount. From what it looks like they are completely different pots of money and would have to be, otherwise there would be no money left for monthly payments until a person reaches age 83/84. From the way it looks to me and correct me if i am wrong, the 360k was only for the NVC people. Going forward everyone will get the same amounts as anyone who got a lump sum already. They will just get less in the monthly amounts/ lump sum than those injured and getting this benefit going forward. Just their case examples show this to be the case. As far as the lump sum payment option, Their Q+A faq clearly describes the option to take a lump sum.
> 
> Taken from the Vac Q+A Page:
> 
> PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION
> WHAT IS THE PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPENSATION?
> The Pain and Suffering Compensation is designed to recognize and compensate CAF members and Veterans for the pain and suffering they experience due to a disability caused by a service-related illness and/or injury. It is not intended to replace income, which is why the PSC is not taxable.
> 
> Based on the member or Veteran's assessed extent of disability, the PSC benefit potentially entitles Veterans up to a maximum of $1,150 a month for life. Veterans and members can also opt to cash out their payments at any time. The intent is to provide the choice of how to receive this benefit, while encouraging recipients to continue the monthly payment.
> 
> IF YOU CHOOSE THE MONTHLY PAYMENT OPTION BUT WANT TO TAKE THE MONEY AS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT AT A LATER DATE, ARE YOU ABLE TO?
> Yes. You can choose to cash out the benefit and receive the balance owing, which is the difference between the monthly amount already paid and the applicable lump sum amount.



Yes, but I think the skepticism comes from the small print they posted later stating "maximum lump sum is the amount of the day this policy comes into effect" or along those lines. 

ITs going to be a three tier system. They are smart if they offer a limited or decreased lump sum amount. Gotta remember, they also dont want to spend money as per previous case history.


----------



## Howie1

Oh don't get me wrong. I think no matter what happens we will get screwed. We always do. They will have some sort of provision that limits anything we get or because April first is a monday and actually ends in "y" we will only get .25% of what we normally would. Or maybe they will do something different and offer up everything then say April Fools! Either way don't get your hopes up. Expect to get screwed.

I'm just too tired of having to fight non stop to really care much about it. I can only hope those that really need something good, actually get it.


----------



## upandatom

Howie1 said:
			
		

> Oh don't get me wrong. I think no matter what happens we will get screwed. We always do. They will have some sort of provision that limits anything we get or because April first is a monday and actually ends in "y" we will only get .25% of what we normally would. Or maybe they will do something different and offer up everything then say April Fools! Either way don't get your hopes up. Expect to get screwed.
> 
> I'm just too tired of having to fight non stop to really care much about it. I can only hope those that really need something good, actually get it.



So I had a long phone call yesterday about my issues from another post in here.

Basically, what she told me. They aren’t even going to start working on the files until April, so don’t expect anything in April. 

I was blown away by this, as I have a meeting next week to go over my file with what is hopefully a CM, after getting accepted back into the Rehab program after being kicked out by my former CM. 

She explained that the budgeting didn’t allow for this to happen, to allow them to prep files. It’s kinda fucked considering everyone is getting told otherwise.


----------



## RCR88

I have a few questions about this Pension for Life fiasco we are all about to deal with

I released in 2010 with a 15% pay out from VAC for 40,000$ and a top up in 2017 of 7600$
With this new PFL pain and suffering compensation being 1150 a month and me being eligible for 15% of that (172.50$) per month for the rest of my life.
Are they dating the PFL back to the date of your release or dating it starting April 1, 2019

If they date it back to the day of my release and lets say the date of mortality is 80 years old  and i want to take the lump sum
That would be 12 x 172.5 = 2070$ x 60 years = 124,200$ minus what i have already been paid (47600$) = 76600$

or if its from 2019

12 x 172.5 x 50 = 103,500 - 47600 = 55900$

Does anyone have any idea how this is going to work out?


----------



## Teager

They date it back to when you were originally paid for your claim.


----------



## RCR88

Teager said:
			
		

> They date it back to when you were originally paid for your claim.



So I am probably looking at 75,000$ is what you're saying


----------



## Teager

You also need to be aware there is no lump sum for vets who have previously taken a lump sum. This is stated on there page in the Q &A however VAC did a poor job of separating vets who have received a lump sum versus vets putting a new claim in April 1st. If you already received a lump sum you get monthly only. If you have a new claim you get the choice.

This has also been confirmed by VAC a few times by those that ask. Some have received responses of you get a choice but again things are poorly worded and the VAC employee probably doesn't realize the vet asking already has a lump sum.


----------



## blacktriangle

Question for Teager or anyone that knows - 

What about someone that recently got a lump sum, but appealed the decision? Does that mean that if they are approved for a higher % after 1 Apr 19, it will now only be available as a small monthly amount?

Thanks


----------



## Teager

standingdown said:
			
		

> Question for Teager or anyone that knows -
> 
> What about someone that recently got a lump sum, but appealed the decision? Does that mean that if they are approved for a higher % after 1 Apr 19, it will now only be available as a small monthly amount?
> 
> Thanks



I'll have to check I know it mentions something about that in the Bill for the PFL so can't say just yet on what happens to appeals come April 1st.


----------



## cowboy628

So can someone explain the reason persons that took the lump sum option now will on receive the monthly payment. Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm just out to lunch, or the only one in step.? :rofl:


----------



## blacktriangle

Teager said:
			
		

> I'll have to check I know it mentions something about that in the Bill for the PFL so can't say just yet on what happens to appeals come April 1st.



Ack. Thanks for the lead, I will try to dig through it and find the answer. 

and cowboy...I'm willing to bet that VAC was advised that those who already have had lump sums, would be more inclined to take lump sums in the future. Hence they wrote that into policy in order to delay the cash flow out of government coffers...


----------



## meni0n

I can't find anywhere where it says we won't be able to take the additional money as a lump-sum. I sent a message through my vac and was told any remaining balance can be taken as a lump sum. I did mention I already took a lump sum previously.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## cowboy628

I have always been under the impression that you are entitled to lum sum also. When I have talked to DVA it's never an issue when asked about it. Thought something change. Thx  :subbies:


----------



## Howie1

Well i also got conflicting reports but Ill post what I got through my vac account when i asked a few questions.

Thank you for using My VAC Account and our secure email services. 

I am sorry to hear that you have received conflicting information
about the new Pension for Life Program. I will attempt to clarify
based on the questions that you have submitted: 

1) The Pain and Suffering Compensation will replace the Disability
Award program starting on April 1, 2019. Clients who apply for
a new condition and receive a favorable decision will be given
the option of a monthly payment for life or an option to cash-out
for a lump sum payment. However, clients who have previously
received a Disability Award between 2006 and March 31, 2019 and
are found to be eligible for an additional monthly amount, this
will not be available as a lump sum payment. 

2) Clients who receive CIA will be eligible to receive Additional
Pain and Suffering Compensation (APSC), which can not be cashed
out into a lump sum payment. The other change will be that while
CIA payments are taxable, PSC payments will be non-taxable. 

3) The CIAS will be included in the new Additional Pain and Suffering
Compensation (APSC) Program. This benefit will not be eligible
to be cashed out as a lump sum payment. 

4) If you are approved for future disability conditions, on or
after April 1, 2019, you can choose from either a monthly payment
for the remainder of your life 
or a lump sum cash out. If you decide to change your mind in
the future and you wish to stop receiving a monthly payment,
you can request to receive the balance of the PSC in a lump sum
payment. 

I hope this provides clarification for you on the new Pension
for Life Program. Please let us know if you require any further
clarification. 

If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact
us again via My VAC Account or our toll-free number, 1-866-522-2122. 

Sincerely, 

Mass Di Geronimo 

National Contact Centre Network Analyst 
Veterans Affairs Canada

So Basically what they are saying is that if you are a NVC vet that has gotten a lump sum already and you actually qualify to get more, you cannot take it as a lump sum. Only a monthly payment option.
If you are getting CIA now, it will be deemed to be APSC and that is not eligible for a lump sum payout. The only lump sums it seems they are giving out are if you have a new claim then you have the option of a lump sum or monthly yet again.


----------



## Teager

The above has always been my understanding of the benefits. Although not very clear it's also written the same on VACs Q&A page.

The examples on the Q&A page of vets receiving 20% 40% and 100% lump sums and then show what they receive for a monthly pension have been removed. Maybe VAC is making the examples more clear?


----------



## cowboy628

I spoke with DVA this morning and yes its paid out monthly not lump sum.


----------



## RCR88

This is absolutely ridiculous. 
It make sense for someone who is going to be receiving the maximum each month not to take a lump sum,  but for someone like me who received a lump sum at 15% 9 years ago. Based on life expectancy, I still have 50 years or so left.
so I going to get like 80$ a month for the rest of my life? That won't even cover my cellphone bill. I could really use that influx of a cash out right now.
We would have the option.


----------



## cowboy628

I had thought because I had taken the lump sum that it would have also come in a lump sum. I have given up asking y because know body knows. They are  just told that that's the  way it's coming.


----------



## RCR88

cowboy628 said:
			
		

> I had thought because I had taken the lump sum that it would have also come in a lump sum. I have given up asking y because know body knows. They are  just told that that's the  way it's coming.



I got that directly from VAC on the phone today.

It might be something that is changing but I highly doubt it.


----------



## cowboy628

I got the same thing a few days back.


----------



## meni0n

Looking forward to that 130$ a month. Going to make a huge impact on my life, thanks Justin.


----------



## upandatom

Howie1 said:
			
		

> 1) The Pain and Suffering Compensation will replace the Disability
> Award program starting on April 1, 2019. Clients who apply for
> a new condition and receive a favorable decision will be given
> the option of a monthly payment for life or an option to cash-out
> for a lump sum payment. However, clients who have previously
> received a Disability Award between 2006 and March 31, 2019 and
> are found to be eligible for an additional monthly amount, this
> will not be available as a lump sum payment.
> 
> 2) Clients who receive CIA will be eligible to receive Additional
> Pain and Suffering Compensation (APSC), which can not be cashed
> out into a lump sum payment. The other change will be that while
> CIA payments are taxable, PSC payments will be non-taxable.
> 
> 3) The CIAS will be included in the new Additional Pain and Suffering
> Compensation (APSC) Program. This benefit will not be eligible
> to be cashed out as a lump sum payment.



Alright, Well I just left a meeting with my CM. Who, is good, but doesnt know Jack about the PFL because she chose not to do the course, and stated, WE dont know the numbers yet. 

She did however, shed some light. 

WRT to point 1
She said she didnt know, and when i showed her the spread sheet from previous pages, she said it looked correct, She is aware that I have been Paid out 100%, and that a Lump Sum is NOT available for those already paid out to 100%, however, those that are less then 100%, can by all means take a lump sum payment. 
IE- Someone pensioned 50%, (using my case scenario and dates, just took away 50% of each disability.) it came to this

So with my timeline cutting the numbers in half, that person will have the option of $297 a month, OR a Lump sum of $167 696 that keeps them under 365000 (what ever it is for that year-342K ish)  

That in my eyes, Creates another tier in an already tier based system, and the only way to alleviate that would be to allow the full lump sum, as a case by case basis, )ie- Someone that puts the claim in at 50 years old, would get less then someone at 30 simply due to their "Life expectancy" counter measure. Even then your pissing people off there that are from around when centurion was a rank. Which isnt fair, I agree. So youd have to set another limit on it, whatever arbitrary number they would come up with. 

Im sorry, but $300 a month, or $170k? Im taking the 170k, every single time. Who wouldn't? $300 inst even a car payment for 5 years, and you can buy that car outright, cash and cheaper, and invest that $300 into a RRSP, saving you at tax time, as well as retirement. 

She also had a laugh when they did some peoples worksheets, and it showed to a $2 check a month. Im sorry, but that is insulting. 

She politely said it was sugar coated shit. 

Point 2, 
She investigated this prior to the meeting, knowing I would ask, because we are seeking Grade 2 for myself. And there is no current or up to date grading system, so it seems if you catch the adjudicator on a good day, you can get whatever grade they please. They were told to stop using the old grading system/formats several years ago. 

I currently am CIA Grade 1 or 3(whatever the lowest level is) 
The APSC replaces the CIA, and WE will lose money, 
Currently it is taxed, the APSC is not. Therefore they are using that logic that, $620 taxed as of jan 1st turns into $500 tax free.
They have said multiple times that no one will be short changed or lose money. Which, is a crock of shit


----------



## upandatom

Seems they revamped the FAQ page

WHAT ABOUT VETERANS WHO RECEIVED A LUMP SUM DISABILITY AWARD PAYMENT BEFORE APRIL 1, 2019?
Members and Veterans who received a Disability Award (DA) may benefit from the new Pain and Suffering Compensation (PSC), by way of an additional monthly amount. This monthly amount is paid to the member or Veteran, and is an amount paid above and beyond the DA lump sum they received. Those who are eligible for this payment will have the calculation automatically done and their individualized amount will be payable for life. No re-assessment of the member's or Veteran's extent of disability is required.


----------



## meni0n

I'm now just as confused as vac if we'll be able to take the extra amount as a lump sum or not.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## blacktriangle

I'd say it's now pretty clear! 

Thanks for posting that upandatom


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> I'm now just as confused as vac if we'll be able to take the extra amount as a lump sum or not.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk



I have been scouring the page more and more today after the discussion with my CM. 
I have found a few spots that have indicated those at 100%,  Will not be able to, because they are at the max lump sum already. 


those less, yes they can, up to $365000, or whatever the 2019 Index is set to on March 31st 2019. So those near that would be best to take that full amount, 

So those people with $2 monthly or even up to $300 expected per month would be better off (on an average situation to take the lump sum)


----------



## upandatom

standingdown said:
			
		

> I'd say it's now pretty clear!
> 
> Thanks for posting that upandatom



No Problem, part of my issues are I cant have Grey areas, has to be black or white, yes or no. So I will scour things for the full picture.


----------



## blacktriangle

Considering CAF/VAC are essentially one giant grey area...I definitely feel for you. Hang in there. 

I'm interested to see what they do to people that are currently appealing decisions. I tried to read through the bill but it everything I found was ambiguous. I expect if I do win, I will get a pittance of a monthly payment. 

It's pretty clear that VAC and Gov are decreasing benefits yet again, under the guise of increasing them. Either the bureaucrats all previously worked at the Ministry of Truth, or they had a sh1t ton of actuaries consult on this to reduce risk/liabilities. PFL wasn't designed to increase benefits, it was designed to slow the cash flow...


----------



## upandatom

standingdown said:
			
		

> Considering CAF/VAC are essentially one giant grey area...I definitely feel for you. Hang in there.
> 
> I'm interested to see what they do to people that are currently appealing decisions. I tried to read through the bill but it everything I found was ambiguous. I expect if I do win, I will get a pittance of a monthly payment.
> 
> It's pretty clear that VAC and Gov are decreasing benefits yet again, under the auspice of increasing them. Either the bureaucrats all previously worked at the Ministry of Truth, or they had a sh1t ton of actuaries consult on this to reduce risk/liabilities. PFL wasn't designed to increase benefits, it was designed to slow the cash flow...



HA, I was an LCIS, want to see Grey, go check out the spec pay debacle, 

I agree with the limit cash flow. I do think they could of done great with this, however, they seemed to have limited the funds. Not to be a greedy prick, but My estimates, along with my CM, I will be getting the $592, plus either $500 but most likely $1000 for the APSC, due to the medical limitations and changes to the way its worded, where its based more off of Limitations, as opposed to return to work bla bla. 

So that is 1592 a month, which, not going to lie, is good. I can deal with that, that combined does help. Id prefer a fat lump sum So I can become mortgage free, but whatever. I understand them not wanting some 17000 veterans at 100% pulling some $300k in April all at once ( I read 73400 total VAC clients, approx 17000 near or by the 100% mark, but I think that number is high)
(5.1 Billion LMFAO). I mean we do have to pay for Family trips, Photo Ops, media buyouts, bla bla bla 


I just dont want to be put into a situation, because of my medical limitations, of putting my family at risk, I am employed where hearing is a must, I am going deaf at 35, It wouldn't be a worry if we were for the most part mortgage free (lump sum ding ding ding), then I could find a less stressful, and a feasible employment for myself where hearing isnt a must. Its not like I have brand new vehicles, or shit like that,


----------



## Rifleman62

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-veterans-affairs-skipped-normal-consultations-to-introduce-new/?fbclid=IwAR2mnYnnAvzNpAmH_oJnRVE7aefDdc8AKQj6S46eU1r53TrBevZQSDRl8No

*
Veterans Affairs skipped normal consultations to introduce new Pensions for Life for disabled vets* Gloria Galloway - 2 Jan 19

Veterans Affairs is being accused of avoiding consultations with veterans after introducing details of its Pensions for Life program.

The new pension plan, which will take effect in April, 2019, will save the government money, at least in the short term, and reduce the compensation awarded to many disabled soldiers. During the first four years of the plan, Ottawa will pay about $1.8-billion less, in total, to disabled vets than it would have under programs enacted during the Harper government. And critics say it has gone to some lengths to prevent veterans from having input. “It’s a systemic attack upon veterans’ rights to be denied the chance to participate in the very democracy that they were willing to die to defend,” says Sean Bruyea, a veterans-rights advocate who is suing Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan for defamation as a result of comments the minister made in response to Mr. Bruyea’s criticism of the plan.

After taking office in 2015, the Liberal government created advisory groups of veterans to offer comment about new policies and laws affecting Canadians who have served in the military. The government says a number of suggestions from the advisory groups were incorporated into Pensions For Life, but it did not ask the groups for feedback before announcing it in the days after Parliament broke for Christmas in 2017. The legislation to enact the program was rolled into an omnibus budget bill in 2018. There was no discussion about it on the floor of the House of Commons, and very little at Commons committees. Although there was an opening for public consultation in the spring of 2018 when the government announced its intention to publish regulations to put Pensions for Life into effect, there was no additional opportunity for comment after the regulations were released in September. At that point, veterans and other Canadians could see the details of what was actually being proposed.

That differs from the way the government normally does things, said Mr. Bruyea, a disabled vet who collects benefits under the Pension Act, the plan that predates the Harper government changes, and will not be affected by the new pension program. For instance, public comment was allowed for 60 days after new regulations were introduced around air passenger protection, the legalization of cannabis, the disposal of hazardous waste, and the law governing electroplating and reverse etching. The New Veterans Charter, which came into effect under the Conservatives in 2006, allowed a comment period after the proposed regulations were made public and before they were approved by cabinet.

When asked why there was no opportunity for public input after the regulations were published to enact the Pensions For Life, the Veterans Affairs department told The Globe and Mail that there is no requirement to publish regulations for consultation before they are approved.* “Cabinet may exempt regulatory proposals from pre-publication on a case-by-case basis, and the specific rationale for exempting pre-publication is protected under cabinet confidence,” the department said in an e-mail.*

The department also pointed out that Mr. O’Regan has been travelling the country to explain the Pensions For Life to veterans and their families, “to get their feedback, [and to] ensure their voices are heard and their questions answered ...” The new pension plan is designed to replace the compensation plan in the New Veterans Charter that is based largely on a lump-sum payment.

In response to questions provided recently by The Globe, Veterans Affairs Canada rejected the suggestion that the new pensions will result in a cost savings. But the department also did not dispute that it will spend less money over the first four years. Although the new pensions were meant to provide more equal levels of compensation, many individual retired members of the military who apply for benefits on or after April 1 will receive less than they would have if they had applied before that date. And they will receive much less than they would have under the old Pension Act − owing to the fact that the new program has eliminated some benefits and merged the rest into one monthly pension payment.

The Veterans Affairs website highlights the example of a 25-year-old veteran named Lauren D. who is 100-per-cent disabled with amputations above the elbow and above the knee, and who also suffers from Traumatic Stress Disorder. If Lauren lives to the age of 75, Veterans Affairs said in a recent e-mail that she would receive $690,000 in basic pain and suffering compensation through the new Pensions For Life plan, which is well more than the disability award of $360,000 that she would get under the current system.

Mr. Bruyea, on the other hand, says Lauren would get $1,590,000 over the course of her lifetime through the Pensions For Life Plan, but $2,500,328 if she applied for benefits before April 1. That is a difference of $910,328, created principally by the elimination of a career-impact allowance, which is one of the benefits that currently exists but will not under the Pensions for Life plan. And the disparity is even greater between the new Pensions for Life and the old Pension Act, which would have paid her a total of $3,168,966. Veterans have been demanding the reinstatement of lifetime pensions that existed under the Pension Act.

“This is not what the Liberal government promised, it’s not what veterans were expecting,” Mr. Bruyea said, “and we are going to create a whole new generation of marginalized former soldiers.”


----------



## upandatom

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-veterans-affairs-skipped-normal-consultations-to-introduce-new/?fbclid=IwAR2mnYnnAvzNpAmH_oJnRVE7aefDdc8AKQj6S46eU1r53TrBevZQSDRl8No
> 
> *
> Veterans Affairs skipped normal consultations to introduce new Pensions for Life for disabled vets* Gloria Galloway - 2 Jan 19
> 
> Veterans Affairs is being accused of avoiding consultations with veterans after introducing details of its Pensions for Life program.
> 
> The new pension plan, which will take effect in April, 2019, will save the government money, at least in the short term, and reduce the compensation awarded to many disabled soldiers. During the first four years of the plan, Ottawa will pay about $1.8-billion less, in total, to disabled vets than it would have under programs enacted during the Harper government. And critics say it has gone to some lengths to prevent veterans from having input. “It’s a systemic attack upon veterans’ rights to be denied the chance to participate in the very democracy that they were willing to die to defend,” says Sean Bruyea, a veterans-rights advocate who is suing Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan for defamation as a result of comments the minister made in response to Mr. Bruyea’s criticism of the plan.
> 
> After taking office in 2015, the Liberal government created advisory groups of veterans to offer comment about new policies and laws affecting Canadians who have served in the military. The government says a number of suggestions from the advisory groups were incorporated into Pensions For Life, but it did not ask the groups for feedback before announcing it in the days after Parliament broke for Christmas in 2017. The legislation to enact the program was rolled into an omnibus budget bill in 2018. There was no discussion about it on the floor of the House of Commons, and very little at Commons committees. Although there was an opening for public consultation in the spring of 2018 when the government announced its intention to publish regulations to put Pensions for Life into effect, there was no additional opportunity for comment after the regulations were released in September. At that point, veterans and other Canadians could see the details of what was actually being proposed.
> 
> That differs from the way the government normally does things, said Mr. Bruyea, a disabled vet who collects benefits under the Pension Act, the plan that predates the Harper government changes, and will not be affected by the new pension program. For instance, public comment was allowed for 60 days after new regulations were introduced around air passenger protection, the legalization of cannabis, the disposal of hazardous waste, and the law governing electroplating and reverse etching. The New Veterans Charter, which came into effect under the Conservatives in 2006, allowed a comment period after the proposed regulations were made public and before they were approved by cabinet.
> 
> When asked why there was no opportunity for public input after the regulations were published to enact the Pensions For Life, the Veterans Affairs department told The Globe and Mail that there is no requirement to publish regulations for consultation before they are approved.* “Cabinet may exempt regulatory proposals from pre-publication on a case-by-case basis, and the specific rationale for exempting pre-publication is protected under cabinet confidence,” the department said in an e-mail.*
> 
> The department also pointed out that Mr. O’Regan has been travelling the country to explain the Pensions For Life to veterans and their families, “to get their feedback, [and to] ensure their voices are heard and their questions answered ...” The new pension plan is designed to replace the compensation plan in the New Veterans Charter that is based largely on a lump-sum payment.
> 
> In response to questions provided recently by The Globe, Veterans Affairs Canada rejected the suggestion that the new pensions will result in a cost savings. But the department also did not dispute that it will spend less money over the first four years. Although the new pensions were meant to provide more equal levels of compensation, many individual retired members of the military who apply for benefits on or after April 1 will receive less than they would have if they had applied before that date. And they will receive much less than they would have under the old Pension Act − owing to the fact that the new program has eliminated some benefits and merged the rest into one monthly pension payment.
> 
> The Veterans Affairs website highlights the example of a 25-year-old veteran named Lauren D. who is 100-per-cent disabled with amputations above the elbow and above the knee, and who also suffers from Traumatic Stress Disorder. If Lauren lives to the age of 75, Veterans Affairs said in a recent e-mail that she would receive $690,000 in basic pain and suffering compensation through the new Pensions For Life plan, which is well more than the disability award of $360,000 that she would get under the current system.
> 
> Mr. Bruyea, on the other hand, says Lauren would get $1,590,000 over the course of her lifetime through the Pensions For Life Plan, but $2,500,328 if she applied for benefits before April 1. That is a difference of $910,328, created principally by the elimination of a career-impact allowance, which is one of the benefits that currently exists but will not under the Pensions for Life plan. And the disparity is even greater between the new Pensions for Life and the old Pension Act, which would have paid her a total of $3,168,966. Veterans have been demanding the reinstatement of lifetime pensions that existed under the Pension Act.
> 
> “This is not what the Liberal government promised, it’s not what veterans were expecting,” Mr. Bruyea said, “and we are going to create a whole new generation of marginalized former soldiers.”


Did you really expect anything less though? To be honest they do what they want, and in fact have trimmed 1.8 billion over four years?

This was a cost saving move, as we get closer and closer that’s becoming more and more apparent.

I feel awful for those that get less the. A few hundred a month, because that is no benefit and unless you can get the payout option..... useless. 

They may qualify for the APSC though if it’s a severe and permanent impairment.


----------



## meni0n

I sent another communication through my vac to make sure that a lump sum option will be available in April for those that already took a lump sum and it was confirmed that there will be.


----------



## blacktriangle

Wow it seems to be difficult to get a straight answer from VAC on that one, huh...


----------



## cowboy628

Well I guess I will phone again, my issues is. I'm at 70% old plan,  45% new plan. They will only pay me for the 30% new plan because that puts me at 100%. So I' say if your going to use the 100% against me  and dont want to pay me the other 15%  than what's your argument for not paying me  at 100%???.


----------



## RobA

upandatom said:
			
		

> and that a Lump Sum is NOT available for those already* paid out to 100%, however, those that are less then 100%, can by all means take a lump sum payment. *
> IE- Someone pensioned 50%, (using my case scenario and dates, just took away 50% of each disability.) it came to this
> 
> So with my timeline cutting the numbers in half, that person will have the option of $297 a month, *OR a Lump sum of $167 696* that keeps them under 365000 (what ever it is for that year-342K ish)



The first point seems real dodgy. Why 100%? So if you were pensioned at 95% you can get the lump sum but not 100%? What about 97%? The whole point of NOT paying the lump sum to those that took the DA is that they already got their money. The exact same logic would apply to every pensioned vet who took the regardless of %. That would be massively penalizing the most seriously injured vets FOR being the most seriously injured. Even the mess VA is in w/r to this, that would be an inexplicably bizarre policy.

But even if that was the case, you'd have to deduct what they've already been paid, don't forget. So the new 50% amount of $182,000 would be your starting point. They'd subtract what they've already been paid FROM that $182,000. So the MAX you'd get would be $57,000, and that's only if you were pensioned in 2007 (the first year of the NVC)


----------



## upandatom

RobA said:
			
		

> The first point seems real dodgy. Why 100%? So if you were pensioned at 95% you can get the lump sum but not 100%? What about 97%? The whole point of NOT paying the lump sum to those that took the DA is that they already got their money. The exact same logic would apply to every pensioned vet who took the regardless of %. That would be massively penalizing the most seriously injured vets FOR being the most seriously injured. Even the mess VA is in w/r to this, that would be an inexplicably bizarre policy.
> 
> But even if that was the case, you'd have to deduct what they've already been paid, don't forget. So the new 50% amount of $182,000 would be your starting point. They'd subtract what they've already been paid FROM that $182,000. So the MAX you'd get would be $57,000, and that's only if you were pensioned in 2007 (the first year of the NVC)



Because, if your paid out to 100% of what the maximum is , it states, the maximum lump sum is the Maximum amount the day before this takes effect(not the exact words, but along those lines) Which as of 2018 was 365k, If your day 2007 when it was less. Then you can get a lump sum of up to whatever the split difference is, so if it was 225k, and in 2019 it’s 375k, you can take the 150 and not receive payouts, (rough numbersjust trying to point out that the member is not at the 100% current payout amount) 

Which let’s be honest, should be topped up yearly here,


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Why do they need to make things so cryptic and undeciferable. Everytime I look they changed acronyms for programs, which loses me immediately. Or their examples are incomplete or don't fit our situations. It's gotten to the point that I just sit and wait to see if they give me money. I wouldn't know if it's the right amount or not.

For years I received approx $340/mth for my ears. Reassessment last July. Last week they bumped me to $1220/mth and change. Their explanation was that they had underpaid me. They backdated to the July reassessment. Problem is, my profile has not changed for the last five years. If it's worth $1220 now, it was worth it then.

This is the kind of shit that drives Vets crazy.


----------



## RCR88

Ok...So now I am confused..

I was paid out 15% back in 2010....Will I have the option to receive my PLF in a Lumpsum? or do I HAVE to take a monthly payment?


----------



## Teager

Expect monthly only. If there's a change that allows lump sum then all the better. Most of the evidence including what's written on VACs site has only said monthly. There has been nothing nowhere saying a choice except for new claims going forward and probably some misinformed VAC employees.


----------



## meni0n

Teager said:
			
		

> Expect monthly only. If there's a change that allows lump sum then all the better. Most of the evidence including what's written on VACs site has only said monthly. There has been nothing nowhere saying a choice except for new claims going forward and probably some misinformed VAC employees.


I've called and sent a few queries through my vac and every time the answer is that it could be taken as lump sum.This is more than a few misinformed employees

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## iltis1994

MONTHLY only applies to claims filed after april 2019....same as when we had to wait for our "top up"...2019 is a new budget....

That's the way I personally interpret it for "new" files anyway,the older claims are able to request one or the other.I see the doing away with the lump sum as a way to spread out the "pain" if you will and prevent huge yearly costs to VAC...whatever...another crock od S*&T brought to you by the government who was going to save the world...


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> The above has always been my understanding of the benefits. Although not very clear it's also written the same on VACs Q&A page.
> 
> The examples on the Q&A page of vets receiving 20% 40% and 100% lump sums and then show what they receive for a monthly pension have been removed. Maybe VAC is making the examples more clear?



It is still there, 
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pension-for-life#wellbeing_act_block


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> I've called and sent a few queries through my vac and every time the answer is that it could be taken as lump sum.This is more than a few misinformed employees
> 
> Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk



I would agree, as I am trying to sort out my Departmental review for hearing, I asked the member on the phone, she said ALL will have the option for Lump Sums, 
I said that's funny, MY CM told me two weeks ago those at 100% wont be eligible and would only receive a monthly addition. (To be fair, my CM has told me she has avoided the PFL training because they dont have a clue whats going on) 

But, Saying that, in the next two months we should all be receiving notices of whats happening, according to their timeline. 
Unless they use the same company that built the Pheonix system for payouts........

Its going to be interesting in this thread as those letters come in.


----------



## Teager

upandatom said:
			
		

> It is still there,
> http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pension-for-life#wellbeing_act_block



The day I posted that it was taken down and brought back the next day.


----------



## upandatom

Anyone see the Post on FB, 
It says, 
"Pension for Life will come into effect soon. If you receive a Career Impact Allowance, you will get a phone call from a Veterans Affairs Canada before 1 April 2019. We’ll discuss how the transition to the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation will work for you and answer any questions you may have. Read more about the new benefit here: http://ow.ly/n5ID30ndS2q"

So we may have more information in the coming months,


----------



## Teager

upandatom said:
			
		

> Anyone see the Post on FB,
> It says,
> "Pension for Life will come into effect soon. If you receive a Career Impact Allowance, you will get a phone call from a Veterans Affairs Canada before 1 April 2019. We’ll discuss how the transition to the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation will work for you and answer any questions you may have. Read more about the new benefit here: http://ow.ly/n5ID30ndS2q"
> 
> So we may have more information in the coming months,



So the one benefit that is the simplest is the one there going to call people about? I have a feeling most are going to be like ya that's great but what about the pension part?


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> So the one benefit that is the simplest is the one there going to call people about? I have a feeling most are going to be like ya that's great but what about the pension part?



I’m not sure it’s the simplest one odd enough. It seems to be the most misunderstood, even by VAC personnel. 

I think they are going to get bombarded with questions about what people really want to know, and to be safe won’t answer, they will pawn it off on another member to call people back 

, I won’t be 100% surprised if they make it a lump sum on some vote buying scheme for the Liberals.


----------



## Teager

If you haven't seen Bird box might not make much sense.


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> If you haven't seen Bird box might not make much sense.



Makes total sense.....


----------



## upandatom

Fresh off the VAC FB Page

If you have already received a DA, you may receive an additional monthly amount payment through Pension for Life. We will be sending out notices through My VAC Account and letters by mail to Veterans starting January 15th.

More information: http://ow.ly/s5Aq30ngDoL


----------



## meni0n

Looks like no lump sum. There's going to be a lot of complaining. 

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## Teager

meni0n said:
			
		

> Looks like no lump sum. There's going to be a lot of complaining.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk



If only people read what was on VACs site where it said monthly. I get some misinformed VAC employees lead some astray but there was never any mention of a lump sum for those that already received a DA in writing.


----------



## meni0n

Because I asked 4 different times and every time the answer was the lump sum would be an option and also you would think they won't be so daft to degrade people by paying them 15 or 30$ a month and have some common sense but I guess it's VAC we're talking about.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk


----------



## Teager

meni0n said:
			
		

> Because I asked 4 different times and every time the answer was the lump sum would be an option and also you would think they won't be so daft to degrade people by paying them 15 or 30$ a month and have some common sense but I guess it's VAC we're talking about.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk



They have sent cheques to people for 1 cent so it's not to surprising that they give people $20 a month.


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> They have sent cheques to people for 1 cent so it's not to surprising that they give people $20 a month.



My CM has stated that some people, due to the timing of their claims, their age, are likely to expect some where between $5/10


----------



## upandatom

I have also heard wind of a group of lawyers already preparing a class action if the don’t offer it, I’ll dig it up and post.


----------



## upandatom

Are you looking for an estimate of what you may receive for an additional monthly amount come 1 April 2019? 

Good news – sign in to your My VAC Account or check your mail beginning January 15 for an estimate of your additional monthly amount.

More information: http://ow.ly/cwyc30niVqw


----------



## meni0n

They keep repeating this trying to make us all excited and maybe forget how they're going to screw people. Can't wait.


----------



## upandatom

meni0n said:
			
		

> They keep repeating this trying to make us all excited and maybe forget how they're going to screw people. Can't wait.



Agreed,
Its funny I had a notice that i had new mail in VAC, 
So i checked, and I noticed at the top it said 

"You may experience issues on JAnuary 15th signing in, we expect high volumes of traffic" 
HA


----------



## upandatom

The letter was in there, it was exactly as expected. The spreadsheet was correct with the amount.


----------



## bick

I get the feeling that upandatom works for VAC.


----------



## upandatom

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> I get the feeling that upandatom works for VAC.



Far from.... I just work from home, I follow VAC pretty closely.


----------



## Teager

upandatom said:
			
		

> The letter was in there, it was exactly as expected. The spreadsheet was correct with the amount.



Did they give you one amount or a range?


----------



## BDTyre

Teager said:
			
		

> Did they give you one amount or a range?



I got a range with a difference of $24.99 between the high and low end...as well as several statements to the effect that I might not be eligible, I won't know until April 1 2019; the monthly option, should I be eligible, might be different come April 1, and if I am eligible I will receive payments beginning in April.


----------



## cowboy628

Sounds very iffy to me , a good set up for April fools. Don't know how they don't know if you'll get it or not. y sent out an email or letter if they cant give you a straight up answer......


----------



## BDTyre

There was also no mention of a second lump sum option.

I feel like this is kind of like Publishers Clearing House...10 million dollars could be yours! You might already be a winner!


----------



## TCM621

No letter for me, I wonder if that means I am not getting anything?


----------



## BDTyre

Are you set-up to receive email from them? If not, you may get a phone call or a paper letter. Mine was online and to be honest, if it hadn't been mentioned earlier in this threat that info would be coming today I would have never thought to check.


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> Did they give you one amount or a range?



Range, $50 range,high and low, but my estimate was dead middle according the spreadsheet shared previously.


----------



## Kokanee

Just checked my account, no letter yet maybe tomorrow.


----------



## Dhillongs

Kokanee said:
			
		

> Just checked my account, no letter yet maybe tomorrow.



If you go on VAC homepage, look at the Notice just beneath the menu, if you click on that it brings up your letter, mine was also not in the inbox but found it there.


----------



## Kokanee

Dhillongs said:
			
		

> If you go on VAC homepage, look at the Notice just beneath the menu, if you click on that it brings up your letter, mine was also not in the inbox but found it there.



That worked, thanks! (tips hat)


----------



## BDTyre

There is some clarification in terms of who is eligible amongst those that have already received a lump-sum Disability Award:

-where the amount under the Pain and Suffering Compensation’s monthly payment option
would have been higher had this option existed at the time of your Disability Award.

So of course...we'd have to determine that. Which I imagine can't happen until after April 1.


----------



## bick

After several attempts, I managed to log on and found my letter too


----------



## RCR88

DIRECTLY FROM THE PFL FACT SHEETS:

AM I ABLE TO CONVERT THE ADDITIONAL MONTHLY AMOUNT INTO A LUMP SUM PAYMENT?

No. The additional monthly amount is above and beyond what you would have received as a lump sum Disability Award (DA) payment. It is only available as a monthly payment for life.

This is complete bullshit....I don't need an extra 100$ a month...I need cash now...Id like to pay off my debt, my car, have a downpayment for a home...
Thanks for the extra 100$ a month....Few cases of beer for my pain and suffering...


----------



## Ciskman

RCR88 said:
			
		

> DIRECTLY FROM THE PFL FACT SHEETS:
> 
> AM I ABLE TO CONVERT THE ADDITIONAL MONTHLY AMOUNT INTO A LUMP SUM PAYMENT?
> 
> No. The additional monthly amount is above and beyond what you would have received as a lump sum Disability Award (DA) payment. It is only available as a monthly payment for life.
> 
> This is complete bullshit....I don't need an extra 100$ a month...I need cash now...Id like to pay off my debt, my car, have a downpayment for a home...
> Thanks for the extra 100$ a month....Few cases of beer for my pain and suffering...



A buddy of mine is getting between 10 -15 dollars a month. He'll be a hundredaire if he plays his cards right.


----------



## RCR88

HappyWithYourHacky said:
			
		

> A buddy of mine is getting between 10 -15 dollars a month. He'll be a hundredaire if he plays his cards right.



Its an absolute joke.  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

$20-$25 is what they told me to expect.

Not even a quarter tank of gas or a box of beer.


If for some reason they decide to tax it, that'll leave about $8.00 :rofl:


It costs, probably, 5-8 times that for administrative costs. My payment of $25.00 costs the taxpayers $150, or more, to administer it. EVERY MONTH. Now, times that by the amount of Veterans getting pocket change payments? And Trudeau still expects a savings of almost $2 million back to general coffers?

Absolute total waste of time and money that helps nobody except the grit government.

How in the hell is any of this fiscally responsible?

 :rofl: :waiting: :rofl: :rofl: :waiting: rly: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :facepalm:


----------



## doomed_78

How can this be happening?  Can we fight it?


----------



## Ciskman

doomed_78 said:
			
		

> How can this be happening?



It would be interesting to see the logic behind it. It is hard to see how some of the payments I've heard about will do anything to help vets. The only reason I can come up with is that they are banking on people dying prior to having to make full payments thus saving money.


----------



## RCR88

HappyWithYourHacky said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see the logic behind it. It is hard to see how some of the payments I've heard about will do anything to help vets. The only reason I can come up with is that they are banking on people dying prior to having to make full payments thus saving money.



It fucking stupid. If I had the option of taking a lump sum based off me being alive until I'm 80 I would stand to get 91000$
I could use that for a downpayment and pay of debts. but now ill get 125-150$ a month....Wont even pay my cell phone bill


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm going to get between a case, or a case and a half of beer per month. Thanks Trudeau.  :facepalm:


----------



## TCM621

The PFL is, and has always been, about cost savings. It is not about helping veterans.


----------



## Ciskman

RCR88 said:
			
		

> It ******* stupid. If I had the option of taking a lump sum based off me being alive until I'm 80 I would stand to get 91000$
> I could use that for a downpayment and pay of debts. but now ill get 125-150$ a month....Wont even pay my cell phone bill



Yup. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's about appearing to do something. Much like the new education benefit which looks good until you get into the weeds. 80/40 thousand (taxed) to cover tuition AND living expenses. Good luck covering life's costs with what remains after tuition is paid.


----------



## brihard

Part of the history behind the 2006 New Veterans Charter lump sum disability awards is that a lot of claims were still coming in for older retired veterans for whom a modest monthly pension would be meaningless. Guys who 'made t through' a career (or who served briefly during the war then got out) and years down the road ad things like hearing loss, etc that they finally found out they could claim. A lump sum suited many of these folks much more. and that's quite reasonable. A lump sum is going to better for a lot of people in a lot of cases. Thsoe who are older, those who are financially disciplined, those for whom writing off a major debt would be financially advantageous in saved interest, etc. The Disability Award is compensation for pain and suffering. It's 'Sorry you're hurt / sick / broken. In recognition of the fact that your life as more suck than it would have, here's money". It's not meant to be economic compensation for lost wages- that's where the other stuff (ELB, CIA, CIA-S) came in. Those in turn were to work in conjunction with rehabilitation programs to try to get people back into some sort of meaningful employment, with ELB intended to bridge some of the income gap between pre-injury and post-injury. In principle, not a terrible system. The Pension Act was 'shut up, take your money each month, go away and ensure someone tells us when you die'. It would provide a modest income scaled to severity of disability. If you could still work, great! If you couldn't, you wouldn't starve to death. This shfited to a new system that is somewhat tested against your ability to still have meaningful work.

Then basically the same time all of that happens, oh crap, we're back in a real scrap where a lot of _young_ men and women are getting badly banged up. Immediately this new system got tested in basically every imaginable configuration of variables, and it was found lacking. ELB has a high threshold to access. The system was overwhelmed with claims and bogged down. The disability award lump sum gave massive sums of cash to guys and girls who were in possibly the worst possible circumstances to handle a large amount of money- and when it's gone, it's gone. So now we have permanently and severely disabled Canadians in their 20s and 30s. People in the prim of their lives. And the system in a lot of cases was *not* helping them. Some of it was due to the sheer bureaucratic stubborness that pervades government departments. Benefits over and over were not given the benefit of the doubt on disabilities; inappropriate standards were applied. Veterans were shoehorned into certain vocational paths that failed to take into account their own talents and realistic, reasonable aspirations. There was financial inequity with the old pension act based on accessing ELB or how it's calculated.

The approach to that over the next decade was layer after layer of bandaids. Increased DAs. ELB increased to 90% pre-release with the SISIP top up (SISIP is another stupid beast). Critical Injury Benefit. It just became more and more unwieldy and more and more stupid results crept in. The principle of separating economic and non-economic compensation is sound. A person who can still work *should* be incentivized to work. The $20k in non-clawed-back income for ELB is a good step in that direction. 90% pre-release income ELB is a good benefit if it's applied fairly and consistently.

As they stumbled and tripped in the right direction, it became clear the system needed a ground up re-write. There were too many overlapping and offsetting benefits and programs. Hence what's coming into place now.

A lot of guys are making some loud noises about some pretty small monthly checks they're going to be getting... I don't really buy that one. They already got their disability award payout. If buddy's getting a few hundred a month it's going to be on top of probably a few hundred thousand already received, plus whatever other benefits and services they've had access to. It's not like the dude who lost a leg overseas has never been treated or compensated and now they get three thousand bucks a year and have a nice life. Whatever people are now additionally getting has to be on top of what they already got.

The 'Pension for life' is basically the disability award amortized over an expected life span. People can still take the lump sum, or they can get that monthly amount for Pain and Suffering- up $1150 in raw form, potentially another $1500 a month if they face 'barriers to re-establishment', which by my reading also means it's stacking on top of the Income Replacement Benefit that is the same as ELB. So potentially a couple thousand tax free a month on top of 90% income replacement with potentially 20% of additional growth to same, all indexed to inflation. That's not bad at all. For people receiving elsser amounts for lesser injuries, presumably they can still work and there are a suite of programs to help them with that.

The loudest voices in favour of a lifetime pension basically wanted to economic and non-economic losses combined back into one benefit that would not distinguish between if someone could still earn a living or not, and wouldn't incentivize them to if they could. For a host of reasons that's bad- having some sort of meaningful employment has a great many advantages for someone's mental health and recovery. I think someone who by virtue of their disability *cannot* work *should* receive more economic compensation for that- the very nature of the term 'compensation' is that you're making up for something lost or taken away, which in that case is income. If they can still work a meaningful job they should reasonably be expected to, so long as the pain and suffering is separately recognized and compensated, which it is. That's an inherently fair notion. A restoration of the old Pension Act approach just isn't going to happen. That's been made abundantly clear, and at this point it's just tilting at windmills to think it may still be.

Most of the remaining mess is in the bridging of the two systems. Someone newly injured and coming entirely under the new system as of April will, I think, have access to a pretty reasonable suite of benefits, compensation, and services to help them to carry on with whatever their life will look like after service. It's a hell of a lot better than pre-2006 'take your money and PFO'. The key to success will be in ensuring that the benefit of the doubt is respected in favour of the veteran, that the benefits are granted consistently and compassionately, and that the barriers to reestablishment are interpreted and applied fairly and with an understanding to the impacts that serious disability truly has on a life. This is not to say that the system is perfect or ideal, however what will be in place as of April I think far better achieves the intent of the NVC as initially envisioned prior to implementation in 2006. It took them twelve years and a war to break the system in, torture test it, and fix it.

Now if they could just destroy SISIP for service related disability...


----------



## brihard

HappyWithYourHacky said:
			
		

> Yup. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's about appearing to do something. Much like the new education benefit which looks good until you get into the weeds. 80/40 thousand (taxed) to cover tuition AND living expenses. Good luck covering life's costs with what remains after tuition is paid.



ETB isn't intended to be a free ride. It's still a hell of a good help. We cover our own cost of living while serving, why wouldn't we pay for our own food and rent/mortgage once we're out?

ETB is taxable, yes, but if you're actually spending it on education that will be offset by the tax deductions for educational expenses. There are also tax credits in some provinces for things like property tax and rent. 

If someone is accessing the ETB, then they are not having their training/schooling funded through VOC rehab. They presumably have left the military as a life choice, and are choosing to accept that they are no longer getting paid to do a job because they believe that pursuing education will open up new economic opportunities. With at least six years in the military under their belt they should have the necessary job skills to be gainfully employable while going to school. They aren't being hard done by because VAC won't pay for their groceries as well. We did not have this benefit, and now we do- and it's a pretty good one.


----------



## JesseWZ

Brihard said:
			
		

> ETB isn't intended to be a free ride. It's still a hell of a good help. We cover our own cost of living while serving, why wouldn't we pay for our own food and rent/mortgage once we're out?
> 
> ETB is taxable, yes, but if you're actually spending it on education that will be offset by the tax deductions for educational expenses. There are also tax credits in some provinces for things like property tax and rent.
> 
> If someone is accessing the ETB, then they are not having their training/schooling funded through VOC rehab. They presumably have left the military as a life choice, and are choosing to accept that they are no longer getting paid to do a job because they believe that pursuing education will open up new economic opportunities. With at least six years in the military under their belt they should have the necessary job skills to be gainfully employable while going to school. They aren't being hard done by because VAC won't pay for their groceries as well. We did not have this benefit, and now we do- and it's a pretty good one.



To add to what Brihard has stated, I know several people who have taken advantage of this benefit to completely fund the programs which would otherwise have cost them tens of thousands of dollars. If you're planning on pursuing education after the military or a new vocation its basically free money with the caveat it's spent on education. I'm not a huge fan of the sitting government, but this benefit is a winner to me.


----------



## Ciskman

Brihard said:
			
		

> A lot of guys are making some loud noises about some pretty small monthly checks they're going to be getting... I don't really buy that one. They already got their disability award payout. If buddy's getting a few hundred a month it's going to be on top of probably a few hundred thousand already received, plus whatever other benefits and services they've had access to.



This is true. However, if members have been deemed eligible for the benefit why not make it useful to them? I would wager that is what the loud noise is about.


----------



## Ciskman

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> To add to what Brihard has stated, I know several people who have taken advantage of this benefit to completely fund the programs which would otherwise have cost them tens of thousands of dollars. If you're planning on pursuing education after the military or a new vocation its basically free money with the caveat it's spent on education. I'm not a huge fan of the sitting government, but this benefit is a winner to me.



I agree with most of what both of you are saying. Releasing members, medical or otherwise, have programs available to them that you will not find in any other career path. That said, and this is only my opinion, I can't help but see a repeating pattern of carefully calculated benefits that wager on former members not accessing, or fully accessing them due to structure. But that's just me sitting here with my pile of tinfoil hats.


----------



## brihard

HappyWithYourHacky said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what both of you are saying. Releasing members, medical or otherwise, have programs available to them that you will not find in any other career path. That said, and this is only my opinion, I can't help but see a repeating pattern of carefully calculated benefits that wager on former members not accessing, or fully accessing them due to structure. But that's just me sitting here with my pile of tinfoil hats.



Well if people don't *want* to access it, that's fine, that's their call. Plenty of people won't *want* to commit to going back to school, that's not their career path. They might already have a good job lined up. Others may sit on it for a while until an MBA or something becomes a desirable next step. Still others will just have fun with the $5k short courses, which is cool too.

Ultiamtely it makes full time post secondary a lot more accessible now that it would have been before.

Incidentally I've also got an ATIP in to see if they have approved funding for any of the various police, corrections, or border services training programs, since some of those charge tuition, and others don't but don't pay you either. That one's pure curiosity on my part since I know some guys and girls who will take that path in coming years.


----------



## cctchevy18

I’m not afraid to say it’s truly not about complaining about a few hundred dollars, that’s pretty rash, you can say all these great benefits that are there now, but systematically they are multiples less than the old charter of which was not only the liberal promise but still shows a large gap in our fellow vets benefits. If we take the “making loud noises about an extra small monthly cheque” out of that context then sure it sounds crazy, but it truly shouldn’t be taken out of that context. This isn’t about whining, people are standing up for themselves and what they deserve, not just what the broken system forces on them, and albeit to the def ears of the govt, at least they are trying, and it’s their right, kudos to them.

I also agree with happyyourhacky, in regards to accessing benefits, it’s not always just about people not *wanting* to access benefits, there’s lots of reasons that people don’t take benefits or apply, whether it be that they have never been helped before when they asked, they have been chewed up and spit up by the system more than once with denied injuries, or sheer stupidity which has worsened their own health and or faith in the system. It’s just not that cut and dry, and I don’t believe it’s any of our places to judge other people on that cause what’s easy for one person may not be for another, why don’t we try to help people who may be reading this and be on the fence about getting help and benefits, maybe change everything for them, cause I have tons of buddies who will never access benefits for a lot more complicated reasons then the sheer fact that they don’t *want* to, and the system structure works great at doing that to people with the delay and deny philosophy among many other things.


----------



## brihard

cctchevy18 said:
			
		

> I also agree with happyyourhacky, in regards to accessing benefits, it’s not always just about people not *wanting* to access benefits, there’s lots of reasons that people don’t take benefits or apply, whether it be that they have never been helped before when they asked, they have been chewed up and spit up by the system more than once with denied injuries, or sheer stupidity which has worsened their own health and or faith in the system. It’s just not that cut and dry, and I don’t believe it’s any of our places to judge other people on that cause what’s easy for one person may not be for another, why don’t we try to help people who may be reading this and be on the fence about getting help and benefits, maybe change everything for them, cause I have tons of buddies who will never access benefits for a lot more complicated reasons then the sheer fact that they don’t *want* to, and the system structure works great at doing that to people with the delay and deny philosophy among many other things.



I was speaking specifically to the Education Training Benefit. That's a benefit designed for *any* veterans, not just med releases, and because you cannot access it at the same time as Voc Rehab funding for school, presumabl yif someone is a med release and accessing it, they have already gone through rehab and their life situation has stabilized.

When I said someone in many cases doesn't want that particular benefit, that was exactly accurate. Buddy does 12 years as a CAF pilot, gets all his tickets, then pops smoke and hops over to Air Canada to fly for them. He may not have any need or desire to go back to school. Or someone else does eight years in and gets hired by Calgary Police, he's right into a career and may not need or want to go back for a degree or diploma. Obviously other people *will* want to make use of it. I plan to, probably in the context of a professional Master's degree. Others will finish their time in battalion, realize the army kinda sucks, and decide to get out and go get a trade ticket at a technical college, or maybe pay for a Primary Care Paramedic program, or any number of other things. It's still on them to be able to plan their life to pay for rent and groceries. That would have been the case regardless.

Now, what you said in the paragraph I quoted- absolutely true for disability related benefits. A lot of people see an intimidating process and don't realize the resources that exist to help them with claims. The wait times on claims are absurd and that's absolutely a barrier to accessing benefits and care. The ETB though is pretty straightforward, it's not hard to qualify for, and it's not hard to get approved so long as you take the simple steps to know the process and apply. Yes you have to have your ducks in a row with knowing what you want to do at school and having a plan; but then if you're committing to 2-4 years of school, you should anyway.


----------



## cctchevy18

I can hear your point on half and can agree with you and appreciate when you say part of it wasn’t exactly accurate , but also you walked around half of what I said, again quoting you, 
“A lot of guys are making some loud noises about some pretty small monthly checks they're going to be getting... I don't really buy that one. They already got their disability award payout. If buddy's getting a few hundred a month it's going to be on top of probably a few hundred thousand already received, plus whatever other benefits and services they've had access to. It's not like the dude who lost a leg overseas has never been treated or compensated and now they get three thousand bucks a year and have a nice life. Whatever people are now additionally getting has to be on top of what they already got.”

Again guys aren’t whining or just making noise”” and I understand the new amounts are on top of the DA, just like vets under the old charter are still fighting for vets under the new charter , it’s the same where the new charter vets are gonna fight for themselves and the guys going under the new pension for life, it’s not about the small cheque’s but truly about what’s behind the small amount in its self but cause they aren’t getting what they were told or promised, they’re standing up against that, and they should be free to do that, that’s all I’m getting at


----------



## brihard

cctchevy18 said:
			
		

> I can hear your point on half and can agree with you and appreciate when you say part of it wasn’t exactly accurate , but also you walked around half of what I said, again quoting you,
> “A lot of guys are making some loud noises about some pretty small monthly checks they're going to be getting... I don't really buy that one. They already got their disability award payout. If buddy's getting a few hundred a month it's going to be on top of probably a few hundred thousand already received, plus whatever other benefits and services they've had access to. It's not like the dude who lost a leg overseas has never been treated or compensated and now they get three thousand bucks a year and have a nice life. Whatever people are now additionally getting has to be on top of what they already got.”
> 
> Again guys aren’t whining or just making noise”” and I understand the new amounts are on top of the DA, just like vets under the old charter are still fighting for vets under the new charter , it’s the same where the new charter vets are gonna fight for themselves and the guys going under the new pension for life, it’s not about the small cheque’s but truly about what’s behind the small amount in its self but cause they aren’t getting what they were told or promised, they’re standing up against that, and they should be free to do that, that’s all I’m getting at



I wasn't trying to walk around that- I just wasn't going to go into it farther since I said my bit, but since you want more from me on it, no worries. *You* understand what's being done in this case, that's clear. Unfortunately a lot of people really don't. The amount of gnashing of teeth I'm seeing on social media over this has made that clear. A lot of people don't understand what's going on and more importantly _haven't made an effort to find out_. There *is* a lot of what is simply complaining, including a lot by people who are not DA recipients, won't be impacted by this, but want to buy into to whatever outrage is currently en vogue.

A return to the Pension Act was never promised or hinted at. They talked about a pension for life, but *not* the Pension Act. And regarding a pension for disability, the only way that the new numbers would come close to the old numbers would be if again economic and pain and suffering were lumped in with each other. That's not happening and wouldn't be appropriate to do since both are quite distinct and both ought to be separately compensated.

Every time I see someone angrily talking about a supposed return to the Pension Act I want to just yell at them 'REHABILITATION!' The importance of Voc Rehab can't be understated. *Yes* there are instances where it has been applied poorly and that needs to keep being worked on- but my God, when a guy in his mid twenties gets busted up overseas, we owe him better than enough money to eat until he dies, and that was the biggest flaw with the old system. That individual probably still has a lot of good potential to fill their day with something meaningful, and they may need considerable help achieving that- but achievable it is. That then plays into ELB - or soon the Income Replacement Benefit. If you're in Rehab, or deemed to have long term barriers to re-establishment, then you get income replacement.

Absolutely people are free to 'stand up against' this. Which as I described is tilting at windmills at this point- it's a done deal. There may be further small tweaks, but separation of pain and suffering, and economic loss is here to stay. It's consistent with best practices pretty much across the board in the field of workplace injury compensation which, for better or worse, this is. Efforts are better made on pushing for shorter wait times, pushing for more favourable interpretations in favour of the veterans, reducing barriers to accessing care and benefits, and pushing for some of the issues that have been brewing on the sides like denial of Caregiver Recognition Benefit to caregivers of vets suffering psychological injuries. 

There's an election coming up. Veterans will again be pushing veterans issues, but I hope they recognize which battles to pick here. The real achievable wins going forward are going to be in service delivery, not in the legislative and regulatory structure of the benefits themselves.


----------



## TCM621

There are 3 main issues as I see it:

The first is the Pension Act was fairly straight forward, X percent disability get Y dollars a month. Both the NVC and the new PFL have dozens of sub programs which most of the people I talk to at VAC barely understand let alone vets  Those benefits are paid out in a seemingly unfair process. Under the new system it is very hard to compare apples to apples. 

The second, is that the Liberals campaigned on a "return to the pensions for life" not to create a new program with an old sounding name. This angered a lot of vets who likely voted for them based on that problem.  Combine that with their handling of the Veterans fair generally such as Trudeau's "more than we can give" comments, continuing the Equitas case despite pledging not to and our new minister pledging to use her position to advance indigenous issues rather than vet issues, this creates a lack of trust. 

Thirdly, VAC is a horribly run department and it seems to have gotten worse since the Liberals took over. You almost never get the same answer twice, front line staff has very little knowledge, and no anility to find information, and (at least in my case) they appear to make stuff up when they aren't sure what is going on. 

So we have what looks like poor policy from a government we don't trust being run through a department that I wouldn't put in charge of lawn maintenance let alone the financial, physical and mental well beings of people who get hurt supporting their country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I was looking for info the other day, on My VAC page. I don't know how I got to where I was, but it gave the stats for past, present and projected futures. It had vets served, amounts paid for programs, etc.

What I noticed was a general downturn in all payments, longer waits, less entry into plans. Less clients getting past the ajudicators. Generally a basic downturn n everything good and an uptick with most things bad.

The common identifier was the date things started going to hell. 

2016-2017.

It just goes downhill from then.

If I get a chance, I'll see if I can't find it again.


----------



## Rifleman62

Quick, before VAC reads your post and delete the info. ;D


----------



## brihard

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> There are 3 main issues as I see it:
> 
> The first is the Pension Act was fairly straight forward, X percent disability get Y dollars a month. Both the NVC and the new PFL have dozens of sub programs which most of the people I talk to at VAC barely understand let alone vets  Those benefits are paid out in a seemingly unfair process. Under the new system it is very hard to compare apples to apples.



*Pre-2006 (Pension Act):*
- Disability pension; % based, varied depending on # of dependents.
- Exceptional Incapacity Allowance
- Attendance Allowance for caregivers

Pain and suffering and economic loss are lumped into the same benefit. There is no distinction in benefits between someone who can still earn a living and someone who cannot. The pension amount varied with number of dependents- someone who was single would receive much less than someone married with kids. Disability pension is tax free which is a definite plus.

*2006-2019 NVC*
- Non-economic loss recognized through the Disability Award, tax free.
- Later recognition of pain and suffering through the Critical Injury Benefit (huge flaws, but not the subject right now so I'll defer). Tax free
- Economic loss through Earnings Loss Benefit initially of 75% or pre-release salary, later increased to 90%, including spec pay. Taxable.
- Permanent Incapacitation Allowance (later changed to Career Impact Allowance), and Supplement- increased monthly payments for the most badly permanently disabled.
- Retirement Income Security Benefit later added. Guarantees 70% of VAC benefits continue past age 65.
- Caregiver Recognition Benefit later added (Less generous than attendance allowance, discriminatory against mental health injuries).

So, I'll concede that the 2006-2019 NVC is quite a bit more complex than the pre-2006 Pension Act, however to claim that there were 'dozens' of benefits and services is hyperbole. There were only a couple more major benefits, and additional services like Vocational Rehab and later Career Transition Services are bloody good things to have. A lot of people suffer disability but are not invalids and can and want to move on to a new line of work. The disability rates for pain and suffering are definitely lower than the pension act pension would be, though note that CIA and CIA-S under NVC can top out at quite a lot more than EIA. The economic portion of the benefits is separately compensated under ELB if the veteran cannot earn at least 2/3 of their old income.

Now, for the new system:

*Post-2019 Veterans Well Being Act*
- Income Replacement Benefit: 90% of pre-release income including spec pay; 70% after age 65. Taxable. $20k of employment income can be earned before this begins to offset. BEnefit grows by 1% per year for up to 20 years to account for lost career growth.
- Pain and Suffering Compensation: % based, monthly amount up to max $1150/mo, or can be taken as a lump sum, presently around $274k at 100% if memory serves. Non-taxable.
- Additional pain and suffering compensation: Three grades, $500, $1000, $1500 a month depending on the degree of disability and the barriers to transition caused. Non-taxable.
- Caregivers Recognition Benefit, as per the NVC.
- Critical Injury Benefit (one time lump sum, around $70k if I recall) seems to still exist for sudden critical injuries or illnesses.

So, I wouldn't say that the new system is much more complex than the Pension Act, and it's definitely simpler than NVC. Veterans will not receive different financial compensation depending on if they're married with kids or not- why should the injuries of a single 23 year old be valued less than a 45 year old with a spouse and kids? Families tend not to be single income economic units anymore, and the economic half of the benefits also recognizes and compensatedthe lost income specifically if the veteran cannot earn a living anymore.

Fair to expect that VAC front line personnel probably are not up to speed on the system due in April yet. It took time to get used to NVC, not the least because of the frequent changes as they tried to fix it, but claiming that most VAC staff didn't know how it worked I'm very skeptical of that. Those I've known who worked in benefits certainly did.




> The second, is that the Liberals campaigned on a "return to the pensions for life" not to create a new program with an old sounding name. This angered a lot of vets who likely voted for them based on that problem.  Combine that with their handling of the Veterans fair generally such as Trudeau's "more than we can give" comments, continuing the Equitas case despite pledging not to and our new minister pledging to use her position to advance indigenous issues rather than vet issues, this creates a lack of trust.



Right, but 'pension for life' did not mean 'restore the pension act'. That specific idea was floated and widely rejected by a variety of veterans specifically because pulling the Pension Act wholesale out of the barracks box would have killed ELB, Voc Rehab, Transition Services and other good benefits. Wanting a pension calculated off the same rates table as the Pension Act would necessarily be the death knell for ELB since the Pension Act pension covered both economic *and* suffering. That's part of why it's a problem.



> Thirdly, VAC is a horribly run department and it seems to have gotten worse since the Liberals took over. You almost never get the same answer twice, front line staff has very little knowledge, and no anility to find information, and (at least in my case) they appear to make stuff up when they aren't sure what is going on.



VAC needs to be run better, no question. Part of the problem has been public service hiring practices. They've recruited a lot of front line staff, but they work term contracts because the department cannot have the budgetary certainty to make them indeterminate. A good worker will do two years as a client services agent, then with a couple months left in their contract they need to find their next job and so off they go using their experience to get into another department that can give them permanent. Attrition has been a huge problem. The rapid flux in benefits hasn't helped either. Going forward there will be a simpler, more straightforward system of benefits with less interlocking and overlap. This should let front line staff get better at dealing with complex cases. But with that said, most cases I hear about get dealt with fine once they eventually reach the front of the queue. 

The biggest problem is wait times. That problem simply needs more money thrown at it, in the sense that more staff need to be hired to process claims. When the previous government slashed departmental budgets, VAC basically had to take that out of personnel and operations since the expenditures on benefits payments are statutorily protected. They lost a lot of staff and they lost a lot of the certainty that comes with being able to be sure that they can permanently keep staff they hire. The current government has made a big show of hiring a bunch more, but a lot of experience and corporate knowledge was lost, and some of the new staff aren't sticking around.

Departmentally VAC needs to be taken seriously by the government. Treat it like the department of middling importance that it is rather than a political football, put someone in the job who will stay there for a whole mandate unless they really frig up, and give them marching orders to make the department work its ass off on service delivery. Give them the budget to hire and to train front line staff, and don't make hiring criteria so absurdly tight that good people can't qualify for the jobs.


----------



## Rifleman62

Brihard, I am going to repeat myself: VAC should triage ALL the files in the system. Quick review for conceivably, grant the claim at the max, with a provision of non precedent approval with respect to a one time benefit, then start from scratch.

Then more money will not be needed to be _thrown_ at the problem and all the personnel retention/trg problem you state will be resolved.


----------



## brihard

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Brihard, I am going to repeat myself: VAC should triage ALL the files in the system. Quick review for conceivably, grant the claim at the max, with a provision of non precedent approval with respect to a one time benefit, then start from scratch.
> 
> Then more money will not be needed to be _thrown_ at the problem and all the personnel retention/trg problem you state will be resolved.



What you're proposing is essentially granting taxpayers money to people as benefits without actually assessing if the benefits claims are valid. They can't legally do that. The claim still has to be assessed to determine if the evidence indicates the disability is established, and if it's service related. Whether something is 'conceivable' is not what legally satisfies expenditure.

You're saying that is Cpl Bloggins claims that he developed an injury or illness, VAC shouldn't be asking questions, they should just pay him out at the maximum rate until all outstanding claims are resolved. Basically approve everyone currently in the pipe and walk away from those claims. That's patently absurd, and would be illegal under the law on how the government spends money. It's not a realistic solution.

There is no quick or easy fix to the backlog. There's a gradual and effective one - hiring more staff. But it simply cannot be done overnight nor particularly quickly. Which is why they should have gotten off their *** on this ages ago, and why I think they have handled this portfolio poorly. Make no mistake, I chalk VAC up as a 'fail' for our current government, however much I may think the new benefits structure is pretty soundly conceived. Implementation matters too.


----------



## cctchevy18

A majority of Vac claims assessments could be made from the military files that already exist, and specifically for released vets the info already exists and Vac has know this since release, I feel like this chain of the forum has become a little like the real world with the vets fighting the government, and in this case we all seem to arguing with you and your opinions, I get your well versed and *educated* on these issues as some of us are as well, but that doesn’t mean your correct in every aspect, other people have opinions as well and they may differ from you and it doesn’t mean there wrong, we should be supporting each other a little more, and theres no need to be condescending either, 

Either u don’t care, haven’t been told before,  or don’t realize that using * to surround *your* words is condensing and rude, that use of characters to emphasize your point isn’t really needed, we could respond with 2000 word responses every time but that doesn’t change our views, anything really, or the facts, just a heads up,
I learned to check myself in service, and it sometimes is forgotten


----------



## brihard

cctchevy18 said:
			
		

> A majority of Vac claims assessments could be made from the military files that already exist, and specifically for released vets the info already exists and Vac has know this since release,



Strongly agreed. Reducing duplication of effort is something veterans advocates have been pushing and should continue to push. A military doctor's professional opinion should stand absent some serious reason for it not to. This would probably speed some adjudications up, though regardless of which doctor's reports are being read, it still takes time for an adjudicator to read them and render the decision. It wouldn't be a magic fix. But it would help and I'm all for it, adn this should be a major part of the 'closing the seam' project VAC/DND are working on.



> I feel like this chain of the forum has become a little like the real world with the vets fighting the government, and in this case we all seem to arguing with you and your opinions, I get your well versed and *educated* on these issues as some of us are as well, but that doesn’t mean your correct in every aspect, other people have opinions as well and they may differ from you and it doesn’t mean there wrong, we should be supporting each other a little more, and theres no need to be condescending either,
> 
> Either u don’t care, haven’t been told before,  or don’t realize that using * to surround *your* words is condensing and rude, that use of characters to emphasize your point isn’t really needed, we could respond with 2000 word responses every time but that doesn’t change our views, anything really, or the facts, just a heads up,
> I learned to check myself in service, and it sometimes is forgotten



I definitely have not been told and didn't realize that the asterix could come across that way- not at all my intent to be condescending. (Was it yours when you wrote *educated*?) I used them for emphasis and won't from now on.

I don't pretend or profess to be correct in every respect. I generally only take the trouble to comment if I both care and believe that I have a pretty good clue worth talking about. But I'm not an expert, just another guy watching the system and the moves in it and who occasionally gets to put a word in someone's ear.  And yeah, a few people are going to argue with me, that's fine. My views aren't always popular. Some things are good, some are bad, and I'm careful to differentiate between which I feel is which.  If I go on at length sometimes it's because either I'm passionate about the subject, or there's a point to be made that isn't easily made short if I'm going to back it with the kind of attention to detail people in this forum often expect.

I'm not coming out swinging against anyone here. I just have opinions the same as anyone - some of them strong ones - and if I'm going to argue them I take the time to do it proeprly, and to respect what other people are saying enough to give it a reasoned reply. Fair?


----------



## cctchevy18

Fair for sure.

The *educated* was an emphasis of the impact of the *, and you didn’t seem to like it and that’s the point

Cause we’re all trying to help each other here in one way or another 

and didn’t think nor do I think checking yourself and being called out when due is condensing,but again it’s a matter of opinion.

cheers


----------



## doomed_78

Do you think theres anyway that VAC could change their minds and allow for lump sum payments? I was told on the phone by VAC a few weeks that I could choose lump sum and now in reading that it is only monthly. I'm at a loss for words..


----------



## Rifleman62

I disagree with you Brihard. You are very knowledgeable, although you continue to make excuses for VAC, and to me you are coming across as a dyed in the wool bureaucrat  

The VAC crap show is going to continue for years, as it has been going on for years, unless something is quickly done.  Are the VAC workers concerned that once they get back to VAC's standard of service and the claims are reduced (baring another conflict) they will be out of their jobs?  Do not agree with remedy: 





> There's a gradual and effective one - hiring more staff.



This gov't blows money out the window, texting billions (even if it was in the overspending "budget"), and "that's patently absurd". That's why we have deficit spending in the billions. Thus blow some Veterans way and clear up the mess.

I never said not to assess the file. Stated an alternative method to reduce the huge backlog. 

VAC requires a very radical jump _start_. I don't thing Cdn taxpayer would be upset if Veterans situation was resolved quickly. The Conservatives could devise a plan to resolve the issue such as outsourcing as an election plank, and of course follow through.


----------



## Teager

doomed_78 said:
			
		

> Do you think theres anyway that VAC could change their minds and allow for lump sum payments? I was told on the phone by VAC a few weeks that I could choose lump sum and now in reading that it is only monthly. I'm at a loss for words..



I'm wondering as a solution for those receiving under $50 or even under $100 a month if VAC would pay that amount either every 6 months or once a year as a lump? So if you got $10 a month VAC could just give you $120 at the beginning of the year.

They can't provide lump sums to those that already got a lump sum. Why? Because then they would have to techincaly raise the lump sum rates for everyone. VAC is giving you the option that you DIDN'T have before PFL and paying the difference to be fair.

The option is for claims going forward April 1.


----------



## Arty Sim

Brihard said:
			
		

> Part of the history behind the 2006 New Veterans Charter lump sum disability awards is that a lot of claims were still coming in for older retired veterans for whom a modest monthly pension would be meaningless. Guys who 'made t through' a career (or who served briefly during the war then got out) and years down the road ad things like hearing loss, etc that they finally found out they could claim. A lump sum suited many of these folks much more. and that's quite reasonable. A lump sum is going to better for a lot of people in a lot of cases. Thsoe who are older, those who are financially disciplined, those for whom writing off a major debt would be financially advantageous in saved interest, etc. The Disability Award is compensation for pain and suffering. It's 'Sorry you're hurt / sick / broken. In recognition of the fact that your life as more suck than it would have, here's money". It's not meant to be economic compensation for lost wages- that's where the other stuff (ELB, CIA, CIA-S) came in. Those in turn were to work in conjunction with rehabilitation programs to try to get people back into some sort of meaningful employment, with ELB intended to bridge some of the income gap between pre-injury and post-injury. In principle, not a terrible system. The Pension Act was 'shut up, take your money each month, go away and ensure someone tells us when you die'. It would provide a modest income scaled to severity of disability. If you could still work, great! If you couldn't, you wouldn't starve to death. This shfited to a new system that is somewhat tested against your ability to still have meaningful work.
> 
> Then basically the same time all of that happens, oh crap, we're back in a real scrap where a lot of _young_ men and women are getting badly banged up. Immediately this new system got tested in basically every imaginable configuration of variables, and it was found lacking. ELB has a high threshold to access. The system was overwhelmed with claims and bogged down. The disability award lump sum gave massive sums of cash to guys and girls who were in possibly the worst possible circumstances to handle a large amount of money- and when it's gone, it's gone. So now we have permanently and severely disabled Canadians in their 20s and 30s. People in the prim of their lives. And the system in a lot of cases was *not* helping them. Some of it was due to the sheer bureaucratic stubborness that pervades government departments. Benefits over and over were not given the benefit of the doubt on disabilities; inappropriate standards were applied. Veterans were shoehorned into certain vocational paths that failed to take into account their own talents and realistic, reasonable aspirations. There was financial inequity with the old pension act based on accessing ELB or how it's calculated.
> 
> The approach to that over the next decade was layer after layer of bandaids. Increased DAs. ELB increased to 90% pre-release with the SISIP top up (SISIP is another stupid beast). Critical Injury Benefit. It just became more and more unwieldy and more and more stupid results crept in. The principle of separating economic and non-economic compensation is sound. A person who can still work *should* be incentivized to work. The $20k in non-clawed-back income for ELB is a good step in that direction. 90% pre-release income ELB is a good benefit if it's applied fairly and consistently.
> 
> As they stumbled and tripped in the right direction, it became clear the system needed a ground up re-write. There were too many overlapping and offsetting benefits and programs. Hence what's coming into place now.
> 
> A lot of guys are making some loud noises about some pretty small monthly checks they're going to be getting... I don't really buy that one. They already got their disability award payout. If buddy's getting a few hundred a month it's going to be on top of probably a few hundred thousand already received, plus whatever other benefits and services they've had access to. It's not like the dude who lost a leg overseas has never been treated or compensated and now they get three thousand bucks a year and have a nice life. Whatever people are now additionally getting has to be on top of what they already got.
> 
> The 'Pension for life' is basically the disability award amortized over an expected life span. People can still take the lump sum, or they can get that monthly amount for Pain and Suffering- up $1150 in raw form, potentially another $1500 a month if they face 'barriers to re-establishment', which by my reading also means it's stacking on top of the Income Replacement Benefit that is the same as ELB. So potentially a couple thousand tax free a month on top of 90% income replacement with potentially 20% of additional growth to same, all indexed to inflation. That's not bad at all. For people receiving elsser amounts for lesser injuries, presumably they can still work and there are a suite of programs to help them with that.
> 
> The loudest voices in favour of a lifetime pension basically wanted to economic and non-economic losses combined back into one benefit that would not distinguish between if someone could still earn a living or not, and wouldn't incentivize them to if they could. For a host of reasons that's bad- having some sort of meaningful employment has a great many advantages for someone's mental health and recovery. I think someone who by virtue of their disability *cannot* work *should* receive more economic compensation for that- the very nature of the term 'compensation' is that you're making up for something lost or taken away, which in that case is income. If they can still work a meaningful job they should reasonably be expected to, so long as the pain and suffering is separately recognized and compensated, which it is. That's an inherently fair notion. A restoration of the old Pension Act approach just isn't going to happen. That's been made abundantly clear, and at this point it's just tilting at windmills to think it may still be.
> 
> Most of the remaining mess is in the bridging of the two systems. Someone newly injured and coming entirely under the new system as of April will, I think, have access to a pretty reasonable suite of benefits, compensation, and services to help them to carry on with whatever their life will look like after service. It's a hell of a lot better than pre-2006 'take your money and PFO'. The key to success will be in ensuring that the benefit of the doubt is respected in favour of the veteran, that the benefits are granted consistently and compassionately, and that the barriers to reestablishment are interpreted and applied fairly and with an understanding to the impacts that serious disability truly has on a life. This is not to say that the system is perfect or ideal, however what will be in place as of April I think far better achieves the intent of the NVC as initially envisioned prior to implementation in 2006. It took them twelve years and a war to break the system in, torture test it, and fix it.
> 
> Now if they could just destroy SISIP for service related disability...


l was medically released 2 decades ago and disappeared, l resurfaced to realize I was entitled to all manner of benefits, IMO, the offering of lump sums is what jammed the VAC system, many soldiers had busted parts that they ignored, as I find those ultimately suffering mostly do so in silence, but when people realized that a 10% injury was worth $36000 on the spot versus say $360 a month forever, many more decided to bring forward the injuries they sustained over their careers, as it seemed more worth their while. And every single one is entitled to that money if a dr. Says they are, but there was definitely a huge influx of claims once vets New there were lumps sums available for this or that. you mentioned “ barriers “ as offering up to $1500, that is true but it will more likely $500, the lowest sum, though still tax free, not every vet qualifies, and at the highest level, you have to be almost a vegetable. Another situation clogging the wheels of vac, and again rightfully so, are the applications for DEC, currently a successful applicant can expect to receive their Earnings Loss Benefits TIL 65 on that plan...and in addition be almost instantly granted what is called Career Impact Allowance Suppliment, which adds another approx. $1200 a month. But after April 1, DEC/CIAS are not part of the Liberals new PFL. This has resulted in VAC being inundated with DEC applications because vets see it as a crap shoot, might as well apply for it, it’s gone in a few months anyway. And yet, those who truly might need it the most, those that are irrevocably F-ed up, will no longer see that money. They say it can’t buy happiness, but let’s face it, $ does buy Quality of Life, for whatever time those vets have left.just saying.


----------



## TCM621

Teager said:
			
		

> I'm wondering as a solution for those receiving under $50 or even under $100 a month if VAC would pay that amount either every 6 months or once a year as a lump? So if you got $10 a month VAC could just give you $120 at the beginning of the year.
> 
> They can't provide lump sums to those that already got a lump sum. Why? Because then they would have to techincaly raise the lump sum rates for everyone. VAC is giving you the option that you DIDN'T have before PFL and paying the difference to be fair.
> 
> The option is for claims going forward April 1.



I agree, under a certain limit something should have been done. It just makes sense from an efficiency stand point. Sending someone 5 dollars a month for 30 years is going to cost a lot of money. Perhaps an option could have been giving a lump sum option at say 70% of the projected value. if the member accepts the 70% you have saved yourself the discounted percentage and the requirement to administer that small payment.


----------



## BDTyre

According to VAC, the last paragraph on the first page indicates if you are receiving a monthly amount or not. Mine says "we estimate you _could_ receive an additional monthly amount..." To mean, "could" means I might, I might not. Very ambiguous. But VAC themselves did say that paragraph means I am.

As for lump sum, that is a no-go if you have already received a disability award. Monthly amounts only.


----------



## brihard

cctchevy18 said:
			
		

> The *educated* was an emphasis of the impact of the *, and you didn’t seem to like it and that’s the point



It didn't bother me in the least in its own right. I was just curious if given what you had just said, you were intentionally coming across a way that it seems you weren't, that's all. No harm, no foul.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I disagree with you Brihard. You are very knowledgeable, although you continue to make excuses for VAC, and to me you are coming across as a dyed in the wool bureaucrat
> 
> The VAC crap show is going to continue for years, as it has been going on for years, unless something is quickly done.  Are the VAC workers concerned that once they get back to VAC's standard of service and the claims are reduced (baring another conflict) they will be out of their jobs?  Do not agree with remedy:
> This gov't blows money out the window, texting billions (even if it was in the overspending "budget"), and "that's patently absurd". That's why we have deficit spending in the billions. Thus blow some Veterans way and clear up the mess.
> 
> I never said not to assess the file. Stated an alternative method to reduce the huge backlog.
> 
> VAC requires a very radical jump _start_. I don't thing Cdn taxpayer would be upset if Veterans situation was resolved quickly. The Conservatives could devise a plan to resolve the issue such as outsourcing as an election plank, and of course follow through.



I am the farthest thing from a bureaucrat, 'dyed in the wool' or otherwise. I am also not 'making excuses for' VAC. I simply have some knowledge of bureaucracy. Not a whole ton, but enough to enter into discussions like this without a particular set of blinders that others seem to wear; namely, that there is an extensive and often painful - but obligatory - process and set of conditions that government initiatives have to adhere to. I don't raise issues like constraints on how the government spends money because I'm cheering those things on, but merely because they're an objective reality that other things must contend with.

You're being unclear about what your proposed address to the backlog is. What you said was:



> VAC should triage ALL the files in the system. Quick review for conceivably, grant the claim at the max, with a provision of non precedent approval with respect to a one time benefit, then start from scratch.



So you're saying rip through the hole backlog, ask "Is the claim conceivable?" and grant it at maximum if so. I interpret from this that by 'at maximum' you mean 'what is the condition being claimed?' and to pay it out at the maximum seen in the table of disabilities for that particular claim. Use this tecnique to wipe out the backlog, say that 'just because these were granted so easily does not entitle anyone in future to same', and then carry on. So no, I've been pretty clear about what you said. You cannot propose what you just proposed, but then also claim that you didn't say 'not to assess' the file. You said "quick review for conceivability", which is a completely different standard of proof. And which again simply won't meet the standards for the how the government spends money.

Each and every claim has to be properly assessed by someone qualified to do that. That's one of those constraints that any realistic proposal must recognize. The math's not really hard here' we're talking about input of claims, time to process claims, and output of determinations. If claims come in faster than they can be processed, wait times go up. If claims come in slower than they can be processed, wait times go down. VAC has little abiltiy to control how fast claims come in, so they variable they can work on is how quickly they are processed. That in turn depends on what is involved in processing a claim (to include assessment, by far the bulk of the work), and the actual capacity they have to simultaneously work multiple claims. 

In the system there are various chokepoints, some separate from each other, some which compound each other. We know a lot of them: 

Quality of incoming claims is one. Are they complete and comprehensive? Has the veteran or their rep provided all info necessary to make the assessment?
How many people are there to actually assess and rule on the claim? How experienced and efficient are they? We know VAC needs more of these because they have a ton of job postings up for Veterans Service Agents, Inquiries Resolution Officer, Benefits Program Officer, and Veterans Service Team Manager. They appear to be struggling to fill those roles.
Does the public service hiring process hinder bringing in enough people to get this done? Could some part of this backlog be contracted out to a service provider that can hire on a contract basis the necessary people to help work the backlog?
Is the process for medically evaluating a claim sound? Are there enough health professionals to move claims through as fast as they come in in terms of determining the actual medical legitimacy of a claim? Does this unnecessarily overlap and duplicate medical evaluations already conducted by the CAF or RCMP health services to determine medical limitations? Can efficiency be sought by front loading any particular additional info VAC might need and making it part of a health assessment that either of those two organizations use to determine medical categories and limitations?

I'm sure there are others. In any case you have more than enough experience with mission analysis and bureaucracy to see where I'm going with this, and I'm frankly disappointed to see you taking shots at me when you're treating this as cavalierly as you seem to be, as if 'throwing money at' the problem means we walk into a big chamber full of anthropomorphized VAC claims and hand each of them a wad of bills to go away and just be dealt with. No. I'm all for throwing money at this problem. So where's the money go? To me it seems that the money has to feed and bolster the parts of the process where this bogs down. Add more capacity to the assembly line. Hire more workers. Reduce duplications of effort. Eliminate unnecesary steps, and optimize those that are inefficient.  Maybe they could separately run a tiger team to aggressively work the 'easy' claims like hearing loss- though they have to be careful not to accidentlally create a system where those with the most complex cases who are most in need of benefits and services aren't stuck waiting longer because their files are less convenient to deal with quickly. Maybe concurrently to all this, bring onboard a few troubleshooter consultants to critically examine processes from the standpoint of the desired product, and to help the department work towards more efficiently delivering every benefit or service to which entitlement can be reasonably and fairly demonstrated by eligible veterans and service members.

Because *those* things can be done. Removing the safeguards around how public servants disburse money on programs, benefits or services realistically can't.


----------



## Rifleman62

Brihard said:
			
		

> It didn't bother me in the least in its own right. I was just curious if given what you had just said, you were intentionally coming across a way that it seems you weren't, that's all. No harm, no foul.
> 
> I am the farthest thing from a bureaucrat, 'dyed in the wool' or otherwise. I am also not 'making excuses for' VAC. I simply have some knowledge of bureaucracy. Not a whole ton, but enough to enter into discussions like this without a particular set of blinders that others seem to wear; namely, that there is an extensive and often painful - but obligatory - process and set of conditions that government initiatives have to adhere to. I don't raise issues like constraints on how the government spends money because I'm cheering those things on, but merely because they're an objective reality that other things must contend with.
> 
> You're being unclear about what your proposed address to the backlog is. What you said was:
> 
> So you're saying rip through the hole backlog, ask "Is the claim conceivable?" and grant it at maximum if so. I interpret from this that by 'at maximum' you mean 'what is the condition being claimed?' and to pay it out at the maximum seen in the table of disabilities for that particular claim. Use this tecnique to wipe out the backlog, say that 'just because these were granted so easily does not entitle anyone in future to same', and then carry on. So no, I've been pretty clear about what you said. You cannot propose what you just proposed, but then also claim that you didn't say 'not to assess' the file. You said "quick review for conceivability", which is a completely different standard of proof. And which again simply won't meet the standards for the how the government spends money.
> _
> My thought process for my post was based on the following: I stated conceivability - capable of being understood, believed, or imagined; or possible. The context is from VRAB directions provided in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act. Whether or not any piece of evidence is assessed as credible evidence can depend on a number of factors: 1) The facts or history are accurate and complete, that is, they are the same facts that are apparent from the other evidence; 2) The conclusion makes sense in that it flows logically from the facts; and 3) If it is medical evidence, the medical expert provides a reasonable explanation of how he or she has drawn the conclusion from the facts.
> 
> Additionally the Pension Act:"The requirement to “resolve doubt in favour of an applicant” is to be applied throughout the decision-making process in the assessment or “weighing” of the evidence. This requirement is particularly important in those situations where the facts of a case are closely balanced and the adjudicator is having difficulty in deciding whether entitlement should be granted. It should never be used as a substitute for lack of evidence._
> 
> Each and every claim has to be properly assessed by someone qualified to do that. That's one of those constraints that any realistic proposal must recognize. The math's not really hard here' we're talking about input of claims, time to process claims, and output of determinations. If claims come in faster than they can be processed, wait times go up. If claims come in slower than they can be processed, wait times go down. VAC has little abiltiy to control how fast claims come in, so they variable they can work on is how quickly they are processed. That in turn depends on what is involved in processing a claim (to include assessment, by far the bulk of the work), and the actual capacity they have to simultaneously work multiple claims.
> 
> In the system there are various chokepoints, some separate from each other, some which compound each other. We know a lot of them:
> 
> Quality of incoming claims is one. Are they complete and comprehensive? Has the veteran or their rep provided all info necessary to make the assessment?
> How many people are there to actually assess and rule on the claim? How experienced and efficient are they? We know VAC needs more of these because they have a ton of job postings up for Veterans Service Agents, Inquiries Resolution Officer, Benefits Program Officer, and Veterans Service Team Manager. They appear to be struggling to fill those roles.
> Does the public service hiring process hinder bringing in enough people to get this done? Could some part of this backlog be contracted out to a service provider that can hire on a contract basis the necessary people to help work the backlog?
> Is the process for medically evaluating a claim sound? Are there enough health professionals to move claims through as fast as they come in in terms of determining the actual medical legitimacy of a claim? Does this unnecessarily overlap and duplicate medical evaluations already conducted by the CAF or RCMP health services to determine medical limitations? Can efficiency be sought by front loading any particular additional info VAC might need and making it part of a health assessment that either of those two organizations use to determine medical categories and limitations?
> _
> OK, OK I understand and realize there is bureaucracy, because that's what you are describing. Find a way to triage that system._
> 
> I'm sure there are others. In any case you have more than enough experience with mission analysis and bureaucracy to see where I'm going with this, and I'm frankly disappointed to see you taking shots at me when you're treating this as cavalierly as you seem to be, as if 'throwing money at' the problem means we walk into a big chamber full of anthropomorphized VAC claims and hand each of them a wad of bills to go away and just be dealt with. No. I'm all for throwing money at this problem. So where's the money go? To me it seems that the money has to feed and bolster the parts of the process where this bogs down. Add more capacity to the assembly line. Hire more workers. Reduce duplications of effort. Eliminate unnecesary steps, and optimize those that are inefficient.  Maybe they could separately run a tiger team to aggressively work the 'easy' claims like hearing loss- though they have to be careful not to accidentlally create a system where those with the most complex cases who are most in need of benefits and services aren't stuck waiting longer because their files are less convenient to deal with quickly. Maybe concurrently to all this, bring onboard a few troubleshooter consultants to critically examine processes from the standpoint of the desired product, and to help the department work towards more efficiently delivering every benefit or service to which entitlement can be reasonably and fairly demonstrated by eligible veterans and service members.
> 
> 
> Because *those* things can be done. Removing the safeguards around how public servants disburse money on programs, benefits or services realistically can't.



I have stated before you are experienced, and knowledgeable so I am not taking shots at you. 

VAC means inertia, and the government must think out of the box to fix it.

This government's spending is out of control.


----------



## TCM621

What Brihard and Rifleman62 are saying are not that far apart. I like the idea of hiring a contractor as a surge to deal with the backlog, if they think this is a temporary problem which  would go away once the deal with it. Hiring public servants isn't really an efficient way to deal with short term problems. If they think the increased volume is the norm, then they need to start hiring new full time staff rather than term employees. 

Right now we have a situation where we have a backlog and despite the governments "best" efforts, the backlog is apparently growing. Until they get back to a managable level, I think it just going to get worse.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Speaking of out of control spending. Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to administrate and deliver all of these $20 payments? Figure postage or bank transaction fees. There's typically all kinds of administration being handled by well paid workers. $150, $175? Lower? Higher? It just doesn't seem to be good value for product.


----------



## brihard

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Speaking of out of control spending. Does anyone have any idea how much it costs to administrate and deliver all of these $20 payments? Figure postage or bank transaction fees. There's typically all kinds of administration being handled by well paid workers. $150, $175? Lower? Higher? It just doesn't seem to be good value for product.



They’re probably nearly completely automated like most regular payments. I don’t believe any fees are charged for direct deposit to a bank account. I would expect that once someone with section 32/34 has authorized the payments, they go into a database and are automated from then on.


----------



## Armyguy25

Brihard said:
			
		

> Well if people don't *want* to access it, that's fine, that's their call. Plenty of people won't *want* to commit to going back to school, that's not their career path. They might already have a good job lined up. Others may sit on it for a while until an MBA or something becomes a desirable next step. Still others will just have fun with the $5k short courses, which is cool too.
> 
> Ultiamtely it makes full time post secondary a lot more accessible now that it would have been before.
> 
> Incidentally I've also got an ATIP in to see if they have approved funding for any of the various police, corrections, or border services training programs, since some of those charge tuition, and others don't but don't pay you either. That one's pure curiosity on my part since I know some guys and girls who will take that path in coming years.



At the end of the day, the ETB is less a veterans benefit and more of a recruitment program and should be thought of as such. “Join the CF, do 6 years and we pay for your school!”  is clearly more of a tool for recruiters then anything.The fact that it’s available to everyone is evidence of that.

That’s not to make judgements about it being “good” or “bad” (I actually think it’s a fantastic program) just stating the facts. It really shouldn’t be considered as part of a disabled veterans total compensation package


----------



## Armyguy25

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The Conservatives could ydevise a plan to resolve the issue such as outsourcing as an election plank, and of course follow through.



But like...the Comservatives are the ones who CHANGED from the old PA to the NVC. They did it for the primary purpose TO save money (or put another way, to give vets less money). If not for the Conservatives, we’d all still be under the same PA as ever. Regardless of how one feels the Libs have handled the mess the Cons dropped in their laps, that’s an unavoidable fact. I’m not sure why you’d trust/want the party responsible  for MAKING the mess we’re currently in to somehow fix the problem.

And from a “big picture” standpoint, if you look at the main platform for ANY Conservative party in Western nations is to cut spending and reduce taxes. Without getting into the weeds on if that’s a good idea or not (since a huge number of disparate factors would go into such a judgement), the fact remains that IF you’re primary beef is there some social  benefit  you think needs to be strengthened (whether that’s welfare, healthcare, veterans comp, what have you) why would anyone vote conservative? Their literal reason for existence is to cut spending/costs.

Again, I’m not saying voting conservative is good or bad. There definitely ARE good reasons to vote for conservative parties, but they are almost entirely related to things like lower taxes/reduced spending & benefits. To vote for a Conservative party because you think they’re going to INCREASE our benefits is just a fundamental misreading of what conservative parties stand for. Don’t be fooled by “support the troops” platitudes (that goes for any political party btw).

Look at her States. Rhetorically, Trumpbis the best president vets could have. But policy wise he’s cut funding and is desperately trying to privatize vet comp and benefits. And if you want to see a $hitshow, wait until private business is in charge of approving veterans benefits.


----------



## Rifleman62

> But like...the Conservatives are the ones who CHANGED from the old PA to the NVC.



Yes and No.

It was PM Paul Martin legislation. Shortly after Martin's gov't defeat, it was the anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands. Harper invited ALL the leaders of the other political party's to attend. On the rtn flight from Europe, he got together with the leaders and they agreed to pass the Liberals VAC legislation. It passed in parliament unanimously.

Common misconception that that dastardly HARPER did it to the Vets.


----------



## brihard

Armyguy25 said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, the ETB is less a veterans benefit and more of a recruitment program and should be thought of as such. “Join the CF, do 6 years and we pay for your school!”  is clearly more of a tool for recruiters then anything.The fact that it’s available to everyone is evidence of that.
> 
> That’s not to make judgements about it being “good” or “bad” (I actually think it’s a fantastic program) just stating the facts. It really shouldn’t be considered as part of a disabled veterans total compensation package



I really don't think so, else there would have been better coord with DND on the benefit. Don't get me wrong- your logic is sound. But if it was being eyed as a recruiting incentive, they would have done an 'all in' look at the impact it has on the CAF, particularly retention. It has essentially added a significant incentive to release for troops at the 6 or 12 year mark. I've heard from several 'institutional army' people in the PRes (some of whom wear other hats in unit/coy command teams) that the ETB is causing some grief in terms of NCOs getting out to take advantage of it. For a bunch of us who are working to balance the PRes and real life anyway, we're now being offered $40k-$80k to quite and get education/training that will further our civilian careers. This was easily anticipated- I'm inclined to think that if the benefit was intended to bolster recruiting, there would have been something else set up to try to offset this; maybe some sort of retention bonus or further education funding for those still in.

From VAC's standpoint, it's a good benefit. For the CAF, not so much. Though yes, I concede it certainly won't hurt recruiting... But it's easier to generate new troops than it is to keep experienced ones.


----------



## Rifleman62

Armyguy25: 





> Look at her States. Rhetorically, Trump is the best president vets could have. But policy wise he’s cut funding and is desperately trying to privatize vet comp and benefits. And if you want to see a $hitshow, wait until private business is in charge of approving veterans benefits.



I missed that statement. What Trump is doing is allowing Vets to go to a MD of their own choice rather than having to wait, in some cases months. to go to the Veterans Administration facility. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-signs-legislation-allowing-veterans-seek-care-private-doctors-2017-4

*Trump signs bill allowing veterans to seek care outside broken VA system* - 9 Apr 17

The US has entirely different system for Vets who get health care, hospital care, prescription drugs, mortgages, etc as well disability benefits from the Veterans Administration. https://www.va.gov/

Trump is increasing the VA's budget, not cutting: https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=4007  President Trump Seeks $12B Increase in FY2019 VA Budget to Support Nation’s Veterans 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2018/09/21/trump-oks-the-largest-va-budget-ever/

_Trump signs the largest VA budget ever_ - 21 Sep 18

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed the Department of Veterans Affairs fiscal 2019 budget into law on Friday, giving the department a funding boost of more than 6 percent and pushing the agency’s total spending over $200 billion for the first time.



Do you watch CNN by any chance???


----------



## RobA

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Yes and No.
> 
> It was PM Paul Martin legislation. Shortly after Martin's gov't defeat, it was the anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands. Harper invited ALL the leaders of the other political party's to attend. On the rtn flight from Europe, he got together with the leaders and they agreed to pass the Liberals VAC legislation. It passed in parliament unanimously.
> 
> Common misconception that that dastardly HARPER did it to the Vets.



Legislation "belongs" to whoever passed it not whoever started it. Harper and the Cons didn't HAVE to pass it. They could have made small changes, big changes, or just not passed it at all. The fact that they did means they own it.

And in any event, the bigger picture is, if a voters primary voting issue is that you believe a specific benefit isn't enough (any benefit), you don't vote for a (small c) conservative party. They exist to CUT spending/benefits.

It'd be like if you're beef is that you hate marijuana legalization, and so you vote for the Marijuana Party. It wouldn't make sense. Your vote is fundamentally at odds with your priority.


----------



## QV

I think the point is that all political parties had a hand in this, not just any one party on it's own.


----------



## Rifleman62

> Legislation "belongs" to whoever passed it not whoever started it. Harper and the Cons didn't HAVE to pass it. They could have made small changes, big changes, or just not passed it at all. The fact that they did means they own it.



Correct. There were Committee hearings for a period of time which Veterans groups attended as well as the RCL. The purposed legislation was well known. That's why the meeting on the aircraft all the leaders agreed on the legislation. Legislation was passed unanimously in the Parliament.

So yes the Conservatives "own" it. I was pointing out the actual history of the Bill.

The Liberals campaigned in 2015 for changes to the Act. How's that doing for you?



> ....you don't vote for a (small c) conservative party. They exist to CUT spending/benefits.



Yes, do vote Liberal: Trudeau: "The Budget Will Balance Itself"


----------



## doomed_78

So basically we are stuck with getting $25 monthly payments with no lump sum option? Is this set in stone?  It barely covers my banking fees....


----------



## meni0n

Yep, looks like you are stuck with 25$/month. Even calling VAC now, there is a message that states no lump sum will be available. You can thank Trudeau for that in the next election.


----------



## RobA

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Armyguy25:
> I missed that statement. What Trump is doing is allowing Vets to go to a MD of their own choice rather than having to wait, in some cases months. to go to the Veterans Administration facility.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-signs-legislation-allowing-veterans-seek-care-private-doctors-2017-4
> 
> *Trump signs bill allowing veterans to seek care outside broken VA system* - 9 Apr 17
> 
> The US has entirely different system for Vets who get health care, hospital care, prescription drugs, mortgages, etc as well disability benefits from the Veterans Administration. https://www.va.gov/
> 
> Trump is increasing the VA's budget, not cutting: https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=4007  President Trump Seeks $12B Increase in FY2019 VA Budget to Support Nation’s Veterans
> 
> https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2018/09/21/trump-oks-the-largest-va-budget-ever/
> 
> _Trump signs the largest VA budget ever_ - 21 Sep 18
> 
> WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed the Department of Veterans Affairs fiscal 2019 budget into law on Friday, giving the department a funding boost of more than 6 percent and pushing the agency’s total spending over $200 billion for the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you watch CNN by any chance???



I actually consume news from a variety of sources. I also don't just read headlines, but dig into the specifics. I'm assuming you're a steady Fox News viewer? That cesspool is a bubble designed to keep the middle and working classes in the dark about how they're being robbed, by feeding you a steady diet of misleading headlines, confident that you'll never dig into the meat of the issue. Case in point:

From YOUR article https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2018/09/21/trump-oks-the-largest-va-budget-ever/:



> "Democrats said they still are not satisfied with the short-term spending plug to cover what is expected to be an even bigger financial hole next year.
> 
> “The bill the president signed today leaves a funding gap in May of 2019, expected to grow to more than $8 billion in fiscal year 2020,” Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement after the signing.



Which both proves my point and is a great example of how only consuming headlines is misleading. First of all, because of inflation and ever increasing gov spending, almost every department has it's 
biggest budget ever!!" every single year. You know what was the "biggest budget ever" BEFORE 2019? 2018. and 2017 before that. And so on and so forth. Just like 2020 will be the biggest budget ever at that time. So will 2021. But when you dig into the meat, you see it's not really everything it's cracked up to be. A $12 billion increase may sound nice in and of itself....until you realize the department has been chronically underfunded since the Republicans took over Congress in 2010, and is actually UNDERfunded by $20 billion. So the story ISN'T that "Trump and Republicans increased the VA budget by $12 billion" even though it's factually true. The story is how Trump and the Republicans short changed vets by $8 billion

The Democrats wanted the dept funded for $20 billion. I'm certainly no fan of Hillary Clinton, but a President Clinton would have increased the VA budget by $8 billion MORE then Trump. 

Which goes back to my main point: conservative parties (whether it be the Canadian Conservative Party, the Republicans, the Tories in the UK etc etc) exist to CUT spending and benefits. This isn't inherently good OR bad. There are times when cutting spending is a good thing and times when it's a bad thing and where those lines are are for each voter to decide. My main point is the simple, indisputable fact that IF you're main priority is a lack of benefits, you don't vote for conservative parties.

And on a more Trump specific point, you'll notice this bit buried at the bottom of your article:



> The VA funding legislation also includes $10.3 billion in military construction funding for fiscal 2019 as well as the full-year budgets for the legislative branch and federal energy programs.



So of that underfunded increase of $12 billion....$10.3 billion ACTUALLY went to "military construction funding". And since Trump already floated the idea of the military building his wall, that's likely what that money is earmarked for. Even if not, hard to see how an "increase" that is taken up almost entirely by "military construction" is going to help vets. So yeah....the devils in the details.

And I won't pretend to be an expert in the ins and outs of the US VA system. But the ones that ARE (the actual vets groups) all nearly universally oppose the privatization of their health care. I'll defer to them

https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2018/04/11/vets-groups-and-lawmakers-say-theyre-against-it-but-what-does-privatization-of-veterans-affairs-really-mean/

In any case, I didn't mean this to turn into a Trump bashing session. My overall point is: If your major voting priority is that you're not getting enough benefits from VAC, you don't vote Conservative. They will only destroy it more. Forget the personalities. It isn't about Trudeau or Harper or Martin or whoever. It's about what political parties fundamentally want to do. And small 'c' conservative parties in every Western nation fundamentally want to cut spending and benefits.  Don't get me wrong, there may be any number of GOOD reasons to vote Conservative. But wanting better benefits from VAC isn't one of them.


----------



## RobA

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The Liberals campaigned in 2015 for changes to the Act. How's that doing for you?
> 
> Yes, do vote Liberal: Trudeau: "The Budget Will Balance Itself"



This isn't a political debate about how the Liberals are "better" then the Conservatives. People vote based on their priorities (in theory at least). There are tons of priorities you could have that would make voting Conservative a smart vote. But wanting more generous benefits for vets is not one of them.

If cutting taxes is your main priority, of course votings CP is the smart vote. Ditto if getting big pipeline projects approved is your main priority, or increased military spending, or cutting government spending etc etc. I can't tell you what to prioritize. But I CAN tell you if WHAT you prioritize is more vet benefits, then voting CP is a vote against what you actually want.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't care what's happening at VA.

My benefits come from VAC.

Trudeau isn't going to do anything between now and Oct. Start working on your MP now. Get them to state a plank you can hold them to.

At this point, there's not a lot of sense worrying or bitching. Work on the ones you think will win in October. Elicit promises from them and hold them to it.

Trudeau is done dealing with us and will only spout platitudes and lies. If you're told you're getting $25, you're getting $25. No lump sum, no nothing else. Work on the future and buy a case of beer every couple of months.

Arguing the same thing over and over isn't accomplishing anything. It doesn't matter who is responsible for the NVC. That's in the past. Move forward.


----------



## blackberet17

doomed_78 said:
			
		

> So basically we are stuck with getting $25 monthly payments with no lump sum option? Is this set in stone?  It barely covers my banking fees....





			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> If you're told you're getting $25, you're getting $25.



"A Veteran can choose to receive the [Pain and Suffering Compensation] as monthly payments for the remainder of his or her life, or to cash the monthly amount out for a lump sum payment."

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/GCWeb/pdf/Factsheets/PSC-2017.pdf


----------



## upandatom

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> "A Veteran can choose to receive the [Pain and Suffering Compensation] as monthly payments for the remainder of his or her life, or to cash the monthly amount out for a lump sum payment."
> 
> https://www.veterans.gc.ca/GCWeb/pdf/Factsheets/PSC-2017.pdf



Yes and they changed their tune when they realised, oh, $hit, EVERYONE would want the lump sum. 
If the member or Veteran changes his or her mind in the
future and wishes to stop receiving a monthly payment,
he or she may instead receive the balance of the PSC in
a lump sum payment.

Now we have the "Architect" in charge of the portfolio....GREAT.....


----------



## blackberet17

upandatom said:
			
		

> Yes and they changed their tune when they realised, oh, $hit, EVERYONE would want the lump sum.
> If the member or Veteran changes his or her mind in the
> future and wishes to stop receiving a monthly payment,
> he or she may instead receive the balance of the PSC in
> a lump sum payment.
> 
> Now we have the "Architect" in charge of the portfolio....GREAT.....



Define "EVERYONE". Your circumstances may be different from mine, so a monthly works for me. Or maybe it doesn't. That's not "EVERYONE".

No tune has changed.

As for the "Architect" comment, Fishbone Jones had some advice which might fit that bit.


----------



## upandatom

I would say you are right with the situational, 
I do believe majority would take the Lump sum though

*edited, gooder grammar


----------



## Teager

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> "A Veteran can choose to receive the [Pain and Suffering Compensation] as monthly payments for the remainder of his or her life, or to cash the monthly amount out for a lump sum payment."
> 
> https://www.veterans.gc.ca/GCWeb/pdf/Factsheets/PSC-2017.pdf



I believe this is in reference to those that already received lump sum. What you refer to above is new claims going forward.


----------



## upandatom

Teager said:
			
		

> I believe this is in reference to those that already received lump sum. What you refer to above is new claims going forward.



Yeah. But it’s also been pointed out that their is already a lawsuit being prepared because it creates a third tier and  they are keeping 1 ssystem going, while incorporating that system into the new one without giving the same options.


----------



## brihard

upandatom said:
			
		

> Yeah. But it’s also been pointed out that their is already a lawsuit being prepared because it creates a third tier and  they are keeping 1 ssystem going, while incorporating that system into the new one without giving the same options.



Not sure what grounds they feel they would have for a lawsuit. Equitas already tried that, denied at provincial court of appeal level, and denied leave to appeal to the SCC. The courts pretty clearly left it in the government’s hands to craft benefits policy for veterans.


----------



## a_majoor

While it is nice that they are reconsidering, I just received my letter on the recalculation of my claim and the ongoing payment I could receive. I can anticipate between $30 and $50/month.

At least I'll be able to afford Timmies....


----------



## doomed_78

Okay now I'm confused...did something change? Are they allowing us to choose a lump sum payment now?


----------



## brihard

doomed_78 said:
			
		

> Okay now I'm confused...did something change? Are they allowing us to choose a lump sum payment now?



People who have already received a Disability Award under the New Veterans Charter, or who receive one prior to April, have always had the option of taking the lump sum, or of spreading the same amount over a chosen amount of time. Those people - recipients of an NVC DA - are also now potentialyl receiving a small monthly amount to make up for what they would have gotten in addition under the new Pension For Life. You cannot convert this to a lump sum. Your $20 or $50 or $200 a month in addition to your DA stays monthly.

People who are assessed and granted disability benefits under the Veterans Well Being Act after April 1st will receive the Pension For Life- in its default form it's a monthly amount til you die, *but* a formula exists to allow you to take it as a lump sum instead all at once and waive the option of receiving further monthly payments ever again. Some people will find this suits their financial needs better.

I hope that clears up any confusion. There has NOT been a change to the small monthly amount that pre- April DA recipients may get.


----------



## Teager

Some of the new policies are up on VACs site.

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-vac/legislation-policies/policies


----------



## Kokanee

well looks like they borked the upgrade...


----------



## upandatom

Kokanee said:
			
		

> well looks like they borked the upgrade...



Would you expect anything less from SSC?


----------



## Kokanee

upandatom said:
			
		

> Would you expect anything less from SSC?



No, no I would not.


----------



## Kokanee

THe page is live, and decision letters are loaded. Got my notice.


----------



## TCM621

All my active claims all have PSC in the name now. Does anyone know what that means? 

Edit: Answered my own question. It stands for Pain and Suffering Compensation.


----------



## Kokanee

site is now "down for maintenance" again.... Got to apply for APSC before it crashed though. It was super easy and took all of five minutes to hit a few buttons. Really like how they are streamlining the application process for benefits now.


----------



## BDTyre

I got in to the site this morning, and saw an amount under current benefits and payment history. No letter or anything in my inbox. After an hour of trying, I'm back into the site, still no letter, the amount has been removed completely and I get this message: We're updating the current benefits to reflect any changes as a result of Pension for Life introduced on 1 April. Please check back again soon.


----------



## Teager

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I got in to the site this morning, and saw an amount under current benefits and payment history. No letter or anything in my inbox. After an hour of trying, I'm back into the site, still no letter, the amount has been removed completely and I get this message: We're updating the current benefits to reflect any changes as a result of Pension for Life introduced on 1 April. Please check back again soon.



The letter won't be in your inbox. It's on the main page scroll down to the blue area click on it and it's in there.


----------



## BDTyre

Teager said:
			
		

> The letter won't be in your inbox. It's on the main page scroll down to the blue area click on it and it's in there.



I didn't see it there either, but that said I can't get into the site again so it might be there now.


----------



## dvfisher

Still no pension for life info for me on MyVAC. I called and they said they should have the calculations done sometime this month or next month. So much for everything being ready for 1 Apr. This is brutal, but somehow not surprising given VAC's track record.


----------



## PuckChaser

66 bucks a month. At least I can get a bottle of good whiskey with it.


----------



## AirDet

dvfisher said:
			
		

> Still no pension for life info for me on MyVAC. I called and they said they should have the calculations done sometime this month or next month. So much for everything being ready for 1 Apr. This is brutal, but somehow not surprising given VAC's track record.



Did anyone here honestly expect they would be on time? :rofl: I think we all expressed doubt when they said it would start on time.

That being said, when it starts it'll be a nice bonus to the monthly pension. Mine will fill both vehicles with gas for the month.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Got my official letter. At $22/mth, I get about six cases of beer a year. Or a dozen mickeys. Do we still use that liquor measurement?  :rofl:


----------



## blacktriangle

$22 bucks a month? Wow, I basically spent your entire yearly PFL at the weed store today...


----------



## Rifleman62

$12.69 per month. It just means your award was low and your age factor.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> $12.69 per month. It just means your award was low and your age factor.



The older the higher then. I'm 65 @ $22.00  :rofl:

I really can't get angry at this. Even if I tried. The whole thing is so farcical, it's hilarious.  8)


----------



## a_majoor

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While it is nice that they are reconsidering, I just received my letter on the recalculation of my claim and the ongoing payment I could receive. I can anticipate between $30 and $50/month.
> 
> At least I'll be able to afford Timmies....



Turns out to be $28/month. I'm glad I didn't "ask for more than we can afford to give".


----------



## blacktriangle

So, literally not enough per month to even afford dollar drink days at McD's...

 :facepalm:


----------



## Kokanee

There are people who are getting good sums monthly, it's not all $20/month...


----------



## blacktriangle

For sure, I'm aware of that. However, I think the option should have been there to cash the value out, even if it were reduced. 

Someone that is 50 years old getting $30.00 a month would get around 10-11k if they live to age 80. It's not huge money in the scheme of things, but you can do a lot more with 10k than you can with 30 bucks a month spread out...

I understand it is calculated based on age and award amount. However, if this PFL stuff was ever truly about helping veterans, the additional amount would be eligible to cash out just as the new disability awards will be.

 :2c:


----------



## Kokanee

Yeah fair enough, it would save the government money too as they wouldn't have to administer so many transactions per month...


----------



## PMedMoe

Maybe it's somewhere in this thread, but did they say how it was going to be paid out?  Direct deposit?  Monthly cheque?

  ???


----------



## 211RadOp

Moe, I got my letter on Friday and it did not state how I will receive it.  All it said is that there is no action on my part.


----------



## PMedMoe

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Moe, I got my letter on Friday and it did not state how I will receive it.  All it said is that there is no action on my part.



Yeah, I got mine too. The letter stated payable starting April 2019.


----------



## Teager

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yeah, I got mine too. The letter stated payable starting April 2019.



Direct deposit on the 29th of April. If you have Myvac Account you can see the dates for deposit. If you don't have direct deposit set up with VAC I believe they send you a cheque.


----------



## PMedMoe

Teager said:
			
		

> Direct deposit on the 29th of April. If you have Myvac Account you can see the dates for deposit. If you don't have direct deposit set up with VAC I believe they send you a cheque.



When I go to Current benefits and payment history, it shows my monthly amount with this statement: "Current monthly benefit values should be part of payment scheduled for *May* 30, 2019."

WTF happened to April??


----------



## blacktriangle

Did you check under "Payment History"? Apparently on whatever planet VAC comes from, 29 April 2019 is already historical. 

Hope that helps Moe.


----------



## Kokanee

mine was scheduled for 29 april, now says 30 may...... seems they are fudging the timelines a bit.


----------



## blacktriangle

I see 30 May under "Current benefits" but 29 April shows up under "Payment History". I'm assuming it's entered in the system and should go into well-deserving bank accounts on 29 April. 

Fingers crossed.


----------



## PMedMoe

DetectiveMcNulty said:
			
		

> Did you check under "Payment History"? Apparently on whatever planet VAC comes from, 29 April 2019 is already historical.
> 
> Hope that helps Moe.



Seen.  Thanks.


----------



## Franko

What a slap in the fucking face.

Can't wait for October.....


----------



## Rifleman62

My son in law (late 40's YOA) put in a claim last Oct for PTSD related to his first tour in Afghanistan. He received a Pension For Life letter yesterday for less than $300 @ 27%. Why PFL when this was his first claim and submitted prior to 31 Mar 19?


----------



## meni0n

He should still be able to take it as a lump sum.


----------



## TCM621

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> My son in law (late 40's YOA) put in a claim last Oct for PTSD related to his first tour in Afghanistan. He received a Pension For Life letter yesterday for less than $300 @ 27%. Why PFL when this was his first claim and submitted prior to 31 Mar 19?



The new PFL is a joke but he can still take a lump sum and it is slightly higher than it was with the NVC disability award. For 27% he should be entitled to a lump sum of 93542.40 based on the rates here:
https://www.veterans.gc.ca/pdf/rates/PSC-Rates-2019.pdf


----------



## Teager

Once awarded you have to request the paper work from VAC for the lump sum. They are giving everyone the pension regardless of when you put a claim in.


----------



## Rifleman62

VAC told him yesterday, in person,  that no lump sums are awarded anymore and that the decision was made based on the new PFL. He is only going to live to 81 YOA! Annuity calculation of course. 

Doesn't seem to me that this new PFL is anywhere near as "generous" as the old Act.


----------



## meni0n

Hold on, that makes no sense. According to their own documentation you can take a lump sum

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/GCWeb/pdf/Factsheets/Factsheet-PSC-EN.pdf


----------



## Teager

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> VAC told him yesterday, in person,  that no lump sums are awarded anymore and that the decision was made based on the new PFL. He is only going to live to 81 YOA! Annuity calculation of course.
> 
> Doesn't seem to me that this new PFL is anywhere near as "generous" as the old Act.



To be honest VAC front line employees seem to not be all that informed. They have been handing out wrong information for some time now. I don't think they have been given proper training on all the new changes or just simply can't remember everything. If your in person it's probably best to ask them to show you a policy where it says what they are saying because if they did that they would find what meni0n posted.


----------



## meni0n

Maybe they got PSC and APSC confused?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

My total monthly payments went up $157. No idea what area was increased. When I see the same for three months running, I'll be semi satisfied it's real. :not-again:

On another note, I submitted two disability claims on 27 March 19, to ensure lump sum payments. Sent in electronically, so date stamped as that day. When they didn't appear in my list of applications, I went back and checked. VAC shows 04 Apr 19 as the date of reception and they just listed them yesterday showing an application date of 02 May 19. Both dates after the cutoff date.

Guess I'll wait a year or so and see how they want to pay them out, if they are even completed by then  :. I'm sure application and delivery rules will have changed again by that point. Maybe a couple of times, with some new program names and qualifiers thrown in our way, for good measure.

For anyone interested, Blue Cross is dicking around. Again. Denying patients their full medical cannabis prescriptions and trying to force them back to 3 gram/ day. It appears they have some new paper shufflers that think they are better qualified than the patient's medical specialists at diagnosing medical and mental problems and determining what prescriptions best fit the individual. 

Great work if you can get it, I guess.


----------



## upandatom

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> My total monthly payments went up $157. No idea what area was increased. When I see the same for three months running, I'll be semi satisfied it's real. :not-again:
> 
> On another note, I submitted two disability claims on 27 March 19, to ensure lump sum payments. Sent in electronically, so date stamped as that day. When they didn't appear in my list of applications, I went back and checked. VAC shows 04 Apr 19 as the date of reception and they just listed them yesterday showing an application date of 02 May 19. Both dates after the cutoff date.
> 
> Guess I'll wait a year or so and see how they want to pay them out, if they are even completed by then  :. I'm sure application and delivery rules will have changed again by that point. Maybe a couple of times, with some new program names and qualifiers thrown in our way, for good measure.
> 
> For anyone interested, Blue Cross is dicking around. Again. Denying patients their full medical cannabis prescriptions and trying to force them back to 3 gram/ day. It appears they have some new paper shufflers that think they are better qualified than the patient's medical specialists at diagnosing medical and mental problems and determining what prescriptions best fit the individual.
> 
> Great work if you can get it, I guess.



You didnt happen to screenshot the submission? I thought there is a number associated. 
Im just mind blown at the mess this has caused. I have three friends that have not been paid, I was lucky and did receive payment. 

Did anyone get a ridiculous low payment? Not trying to get into your business, and understand privacy, however my Case Manager said that after their training they were looking at allowing people with less then X amount a month receive a lump sum payment.


----------



## upandatom

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Turns out to be $28/month. I'm glad I didn't "ask for more than we can afford to give".



I would appeal that, there has to be some path. That would not even cover a cell phone bill.


----------



## Teager

upandatom said:
			
		

> You didnt happen to screenshot the submission? I thought there is a number associated.
> Im just mind blown at the mess this has caused. I have three friends that have not been paid, I was lucky and did receive payment.
> 
> Did anyone get a ridiculous low payment? Not trying to get into your business, and understand privacy, however my Case Manager said that after their training they were looking at allowing people with less then X amount a month receive a lump sum payment.



I bet VAC is looking at doing that. I've heard some predictions this would happen remember it's an election year so I'm sure the Liberals will be trying to throw a few bones out to make people happy. I wouldn't hold my breath on any changes until after the election even then it could be another year or so until any changes take effect.


----------



## upandatom

I think the big thing is them realizing, we didn’t give them what they wanted now they are mad. Of course their are going to be a lot of false promises. Seems to be the liberal agenda as of late, even cons too. I just want to get by without working 50 hours a week, and delivering papers. A couple grand in medical bills that blue cross is denying payment for recognized conditions for has really hurt my family.


----------



## BDTyre

Teager said:
			
		

> I bet VAC is looking at doing that. I've heard some predictions this would happen remember it's an election year so I'm sure the Liberals will be trying to throw a few bones out to make people happy. I wouldn't hold my breath on any changes until after the election even then it could be another year or so until any changes take effect.



During which time we still get paid monthly thus shrinking any lump sum they'd offer people. But still...it might be preferable to receiving the equivalent of your Netflix bill each month.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Got a reply to my query.

VAC website says applications will be posted within several days. It looks like they've added another wait period for claims that we never heard about.

In part:


> Our records indicate that we received two Disability Benefits
> applications on March 27, 2019. These applications will soon
> be added to My VAC Account. Please note this may take several
> weeks to be added to Track my Applications. We thank you for
> our patience.



Strangely, these applications went from several weeks to being posted just before they sent their apologies. They will be processed with the option of monthly payouts or lump sum. My choice.

I doubt the claims will move any faster, probably a couple of years at today's rate. But at least they are now in the system. I doubt they get looked at before they get posted to My Applications. So that's, maybe, dead claim time also. Which would add more time to the wait period.


----------



## Teager

Posted in wrong thread.


----------



## Dhillongs

upandatom said:
			
		

> I think the big thing is them realizing, we didn’t give them what they wanted now they are mad. Of course their are going to be a lot of false promises. Seems to be the liberal agenda as of late, even cons too. I just want to get by without working 50 hours a week, and delivering papers. A couple grand in medical bills that blue cross is denying payment for recognized conditions for has really hurt my family.




well I do think by now everyone has realized that pension for life is a absolute insult and a joke, especially for those people who are getting $12-100 a month, how can the PM or the CDS even call that PFL, I guess they don't really care they have fulfilled a promise, I am however a bit surprised that there have been no objective articles on CBC or CTV or any of the newspapers that tell the public what PFL has meant for Veterans. Trudeau is done I think this year anyways, he has a long list of good screw ups he gave the all Canadians, had a lot of hopes from him but unfortunately he is just another politician.


----------



## brihard

Dhillongs said:
			
		

> well I do think by now everyone has realized that pension for life is a absolute insult and a joke, especially for those people who are getting $12-100 a month, how can the PM or the CDS even call that PFL, I guess they don't really care they have fulfilled a promise, I am however a bit surprised that there have been no objective articles on CBC or CTV or any of the newspapers that tell the public what PFL has meant for Veterans. Trudeau is done I think this year anyways, he has a long list of good screw ups he gave the all Canadians, had a lot of hopes from him but unfortunately he is just another politician.



In fairness, anyone getting a few dozen bucks a month is getting the monthly extra on top of a prior lump sum. It’s not like a fresh claim after PFL implementation is going to net someone $27 monthly. Obviously it’s still much lower than the old pension act amounts, but let’s at least be accurate in pushing the issue.


----------



## Teager

I found one rather big misleading benefit from VAC is the 1% career progression which you get if DEC and under 20 years of service and under age 65. Now VAC had said those receiving CIAS would still be eligible but what they didn't tell anyone is that your protected amount which has the CIAS included does not actually get the 1% added to it. They add the 1% to the IRB amount that they calculate under the new system. They then take whichever is higher which of course will most likely be your protected amount. I do believe they re calculate everything every year and if the IRB amount surpasses your protected amount you would get the higher amount. 

I think they may have done it this way to make it a bit more fair for those that can't get CIAS anymore. I just found it very misleading in how they told veterans about it but was only noticeable once the calculation sheet was produced.


----------



## JP199999

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> My total monthly payments went up $157. No idea what area was increased. When I see the same for three months running, I'll be semi satisfied it's real. :not-again:
> 
> On another note, I submitted two disability claims on 27 March 19, to ensure lump sum payments. Sent in electronically, so date stamped as that day. When they didn't appear in my list of applications, I went back and checked. VAC shows 04 Apr 19 as the date of reception and they just listed them yesterday showing an application date of 02 May 19. Both dates after the cutoff date.
> 
> Guess I'll wait a year or so and see how they want to pay them out, if they are even completed by then  :. I'm sure application and delivery rules will have changed again by that point. Maybe a couple of times, with some new program names and qualifiers thrown in our way, for good measure.
> 
> For anyone interested, Blue Cross is dicking around. Again. Denying patients their full medical cannabis prescriptions and trying to force them back to 3 gram/ day. It appears they have some new paper shufflers that think they are better qualified than the patient's medical specialists at diagnosing medical and mental problems and determining what prescriptions best fit the individual.
> 
> Great work if you can get it, I guess.



Turns out the date/time stamp of the initial claim submission does not matter... I had claims I submitted in Feb 2018 and they just adjudicated them a few days ago and VAC told me that since the adjudication occurred after 1 April, it automatically goes under the new system. I feel cheated since older claims I had, where I received a lump sum and after April 1st, an additional monthly amount, even if its only a hundred $ its better than nothing. 

Now you can either take the lump sum or the monthly amount but you can't get both (i.e. a lump sum and a reduced monthly amount) as you would've gotten if your claim was processed before 1 April. So basically because VAC took forever I'm losing out on an additional monthly amount. Pension for life...  : Were being penalized for choosing a lump sum or receiving a tiny monthly amount haha gotta love the choices. Ill be interested to see if anything new gets released after the elections, if the gvt changes...


----------



## TCM621

JP199999 said:
			
		

> Turns out the date/time stamp of the initial claim submission does not matter... I had claims I submitted in Feb 2018 and they just adjudicated them a few days ago and VAC told me that since the adjudication occurred after 1 April, it automatically goes under the new system. I feel cheated since older claims I had, where I received a lump sum and after April 1st, an additional monthly amount, even if its only a hundred $ its better than nothing.
> 
> Now you can either take the lump sum or the monthly amount but you can't get both (i.e. a lump sum and a reduced monthly amount) as you would've gotten if your claim was processed before 1 April. So basically because VAC took forever I'm losing out on an additional monthly amount. Pension for life...  : Were being penalized for choosing a lump sum or receiving a tiny monthly amount haha gotta love the choices. Ill be interested to see if anything new gets released after the elections, if the gvt changes...



Send a letter to the Veteran's Minister and your MP. We need to be more vocal and let them know that we will vote accordingly. We are a small group but large enough that we can make people listen if enough of us say something.


----------



## upandatom

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> My son in law (late 40's YOA) put in a claim last Oct for PTSD related to his first tour in Afghanistan. He received a Pension For Life letter yesterday for less than $300 @ 27%. Why PFL when this was his first claim and submitted prior to 31 Mar 19?



Most likely its wording. 
He has to most likely request the full payment.


----------



## meday875

Please can someone explain to me the CIA Supplement? I was approved DEC in February of 2019, and as soon as my approval went through, my case manager stopped answering my phone calls since I guess now that I'm no longer Rehab I'm no longer her problem. However before she stopped answering my calls she did have me fill out the application for the CIA Supplement. I did that on March 5th. From what she told me it is $1145.00 (Tax free) a month on top of the $1000.00 (tax free) APSC Grade 2. My application was FINALLY completed last week, or at least I'm assuming because that was last Wednesday October 30th, and there still hasn't been a letter generated about the decision much less can anyone at VAC tell me anything. I am guessing it was approved because my APSC (Previously CIA) went up from the $500 to $1000 as i can see on my benefits online, but I still don't see anything about a supplement, and yet my IRB increased? So I received an $888.00 monthly taxable increase on my IRB, but no supplement? I got a back pay for the IRB increase, but no back pay for the CIA increase, which as far as the regulations, of which I have searched through many, say that it should be back dated to the date of the application. Can someone please tell me if the IRB increase IS the CIA Supplement? Or is it something entirely different? I'm at a total loss and VAC is literally NO help. Every time I call them I end up educating someone on the way a specific benefit works, I had someone last week not even knowing that the APSC (Previously CIA) is non taxable.


----------



## upandatom

meday875 said:
			
		

> Please can someone explain to me the CIA Supplement? I was approved DEC in February of 2019, and as soon as my approval went through, my case manager stopped answering my phone calls since I guess now that I'm no longer Rehab I'm no longer her problem. However before she stopped answering my calls she did have me fill out the application for the CIA Supplement. I did that on March 5th. From what she told me it is $1145.00 (Tax free) a month on top of the $1000.00 (tax free) APSC Grade 2. My application was FINALLY completed last week, or at least I'm assuming because that was last Wednesday October 30th, and there still hasn't been a letter generated about the decision much less can anyone at VAC tell me anything. I am guessing it was approved because my APSC (Previously CIA) went up from the $500 to $1000 as i can see on my benefits online, but I still don't see anything about a supplement, and yet my IRB increased? So I received an $888.00 monthly taxable increase on my IRB, but no supplement? I got a back pay for the IRB increase, but no back pay for the CIA increase, which as far as the regulations, of which I have searched through many, say that it should be back dated to the date of the application. Can someone please tell me if the IRB increase IS the CIA Supplement? Or is it something entirely different? I'm at a total loss and VAC is literally NO help. Every time I call them I end up educating someone on the way a specific benefit works, I had someone last week not even knowing that the APSC (Previously CIA) is non taxable.



CIA was taxable, CIA turned into APSC, 
APSC and IRB are unrelated. 


PSC, is the monthly "Pension" TAX FREE
APSC is the stipend that recognizes permanent and severe conditions limiting work. $500, $1000, $1500, dependent on severity
APSC is TAX FREE

IRB, PSC and APSC are supposed to be backdatable, 
PSC is the pension that is related to your DA, varies per person dependent on the amount of DA you received and the amount you were paid out.


----------



## meday875

But what about the CIA Supplement? Which is separate from the CIA, there is no equivalent with the new regulations as of April 1, but as I understand it, I would be grandfathered since my application is prior to that.


----------



## upandatom

meday875 said:
			
		

> But what about the CIA Supplement? Which is separate from the CIA, there is no equivalent with the new regulations as of April 1, but as I understand it, I would be grandfathered since my application is prior to that.



Yes, CIA is equivalent too APSC


----------



## meday875

No, the CIA (APSC) and the CIA Supplement are two different things.


----------



## upandatom

meday875 said:
			
		

> No, the CIA (APSC) and the CIA Supplement are two different things.



Sorry I missed the supplement part, 
The supplement part is a top up, and was taxable. Im not sure where that went in the shuffle.


----------



## meday875

So it is taxable? That would make more sense then.


----------



## Teager

meday875 said:
			
		

> But what about the CIA Supplement? Which is separate from the CIA, there is no equivalent with the new regulations as of April 1, but as I understand it, I would be grandfathered since my application is prior to that.



Your CIA supplement is not tax free it is taxed and they include it with your IRB. They just don't show it as a separate line in your VAC account. Your APSC was granted to level 2 and that is tax free.


----------



## meday875

Thank you! No one has been able to tell me that so far! I’ve spoken to like 5 people at VAC and no one had any idea, and since I haven’t gotten a decision letter yet (not even one generated) I have had no idea what has been going on with my benefits.


----------

