# Liberals Want Injured to Keep Getting Danger Pay Back in Canada



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2006)

Am I being callous (and I'm sure I'll be told  ;D ), or is this idea, well, a bit goofy?  If you're outta danger of possible contact/battle, I'm thinking the danger pay should stop.  I note it can continue for 25 days after someone leaves theatre, but is outside Canada.  Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Injured troops lose danger pay when home*
Glen Mc Gregor, Ottawa Citizen, 4 Oct 06
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/61630

Canadian soldiers injured in Afghanistan are returning home to find they have been cut off from the extra danger pay they received serving in Kandahar. 

The Department of National Defence says its pay-and-benefits policy dictates that even injured soldiers lose the special allowances they receive for fighting in danger zones. 

Canadian Forces members are eligible for extra pay for risk, hardship and foreign service, or a combination of all three, as is the case in Afghanistan. 

A corporal on his second rotation in Kandahar, for instance, receives an additional $2,111 a month on top of a salary that ranges from $4,069 to $5,190. 

The allowances are tax-free and base salary is also tax exempt up to $6,647 on risky missions. 

But once a soldier is injured and leaves Afghanistan, the additional benefits end and his or her paycheque returns to its previous level. 

DND spokesman John Knoll says there is a discretionary extension to allowances for up to 25 days while the injured soldier is in transit or being treated out of country -- at the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, for instance. But once in Canada, the benefits end. 

Liberal MP Dan Mc Teague says he was shocked to learn that soldiers who risk their lives were getting docked for pay they would have received if they didn't get hurt. 

"I think that's a very shabby way our way to treat our soldiers," he said. 

"What does that say for morale? We look like a bunch of cheapskates to our soldiers who need us at this time." 

He said the increase in injuries in Afghanistan requires to the government to change the policy now. Since 2001, at least 158 Canadian soldiers have been injured, while 39 have died, including injuries yesterday. 



*Wounded soldiers shouldn't lose pay perks, MPs say*
Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, 5 Oct 06
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1159998617517&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

Opposition MPs are pressing the government to reverse a policy stopping badly injured soldiers evacuated from Afghanistan from collecting danger pay and other financial perks that add thousands of dollars a month to their pay.

"I find it deplorable," said Liberal MP Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East). "If they're wounded, there's no way under the sun they should find themselves cut off. It looks like we're cheap or we don't care.

"If we've got $13 billion (surplus) bucks to put down towards our debt, surely we have enough money to restore the funding to our wounded soldiers who've taken a bullet for their country." 

The moment Canada's injured are sent to Germany or to Canada for medical treatment they are no longer entitled to "operational allowance" that adds $2,111 to monthly pay. 

That allowance, the same regardless of rank, compensates soldiers for being away from home and for mission hardships and risks, defence spokesperson John Knoll said. Allowance is paid for "being in that place and under those conditions." 

The military can continue the allowance for up to 25 days after a soldier leaves Afghanistan and usually does. After that, it ends.

Injured soldiers also lose tax-free status. In Afghanistan, soldiers do not pay income tax on earnings up to $6,647 a month. That perk disappears if they are hurt and returned home. 

Defence officials do note that, unlike many in civilian jobs, injured soldiers still collect their base salary and retain benefits while recovering.

McTeague argues the injured should be compensated for the time they were to be in Afghanistan, usually "a six-month commitment. We should retroactively pay all those wounded soldiers.

"The country owes it to them (and) ... the Prime Minister has an opportunity to do that."

A cousin of McTeague's was severely wounded in an Afghan suicide bombing last month. He's recovering at Toronto's Sunnybrook Hospital.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore), said the policy "sends the wrong message ... that, if you get injured, financially you're going to be a lot worse off." 

Étienne Allard, speaking for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, said by email the government has no plans to alter its "operational allowance" policy.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Oct 2006)

I think that policy has been in effect even for guys wounded in  Bosnia.  And, what if someone gets wounded on their day before heading home (heaven forbid): how long do his benefits last?

I smell slippery slope and politicking.  Does the fact that the honourable member's own cousin was wounded that he is only now learning of this policy?

Just asking.


----------



## LIKELY (5 Oct 2006)

OK....tries to breath....
This is yet another spin job by the liberal party to put people up against the Conservatives. I think the policy is fair...in the long run an injured soldier will probably benefit more from his/her injuries via Veteran Affairs pensions than if they had received the danger pay. Just another talking head from Ottawa trying to raise the publics ire.

I hate politicians....ARRGGHH!


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2006)

:rofl:

Flipping crusaders!

VG you nailed it, my pay was "fixed" even before our plane landed in Ottawa!  I had paperwork waiting in my room telling me this!!

Well if they get it back good on the boys, they deserve to still be paid!!

(anything retroactive from when the Liberals were in power and "Peacekeepers" were wounded?)

dileas

tess


----------



## Journeyman (5 Oct 2006)

Obviously, someone in the Liberal party has caught a poll that Canadians support the troops. They now feel a need to jump on the bandwagon (leadership from the back of the opinion poll), no matter how poorly thought out it is. 

Of course, there is a precedent....considering how much the Liberal-packed Senate gets paid for contributing nothing to the governance of Canada, it's equally logical for the troops not in danger to get danger pay.  :


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Obviously, someone in the Liberal party has caught a poll that Canadians support the troops. They now feel a need to jump on the bandwagon (leadership from the back of the opinion poll), no matter how poorly thought out it is.
> 
> Of course, there is a precedent....considering how much the Liberal-packed Senate gets paid for contributing nothing to the governance of Canada, it's equally logical for the troops not in danger to get danger pay.  :



Then we'd have to give the senators a raise  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Oct 2006)

Yup, if your paying me to do nothing than I'm grossly underpaid.......


----------



## Chewie (5 Oct 2006)

I think if the politicians truley wanted to help us, then pass the bill that stops docking are pensions when CPP kicks in.

Andy


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Oct 2006)

I agree with LIKELY, the FSP/Risk/Hazard pay is for service on operations.  Those injured soldiers will receive Disability Pensions that deal with the long-term issues associated with their injuries, in this case, injuries sustained on operations in a designated Special Duty Area.  Per the Pension Act, a Disability Pension is deemed to be a tax-free benefit.  Ref: VAC Disability Pensions

It seems as though the Liberals are trying to imply that the soldiers won't be looked after by the Government, which is untrue.  This is a case of someone trying to use the wrong tool to fix something...likely for political leveraging/gain and not real benefit of the soldiers.

What would be of greatest benefit, would be to ensure that the soldiers receive appropriately sufficient Disability Pensions from VAC.  This is where the focus should really be placed, as there are anecdotal cases out there where long-term support appeared less than supportive to the injured members. 

G2G


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2006)

LIKELY said:
			
		

> OK....tries to breath....
> This is yet another spin job by the liberal party to put people up against the Conservatives. I think the policy is fair...in the long run an injured soldier will probably benefit more from his/her injuries via Veteran Affairs pensions than if they had received the danger pay. Just another talking head from Ottawa trying to raise the publics ire.
> 
> I hate politicians....ARRGGHH!



VAC pension is not immediately given however, and is back dated to the date you apply.

However, I find it interesting how a long serving member of the Liberal party never brought this up, when those of us were being injured on operations when the Liberals held power.

Interesting to see, guess it may be time to send out an e-mail to get clarification on this new stance.  

dileas

tess


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2006)

I don't know how the pay works, but one would hope that the soldier receives some sort of financial assistance to compensate for the injury and towards helping them adjust to their new situation. do they get decent support for equipment or changes to their housing to help them deal with their new disability?


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2006)

Yes,

But not immediately.

dileas

tess


----------



## MJP (5 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Yes,
> 
> But not immediately.
> 
> ...



It's change a bit since you've been injured Tess.  Visiting my buddy in Winnipeg that had his legs blown off in an IED, he mentioned how fast he got all his payments and whatever he didn't have they quickly covered.  It seems that the CF(rightly so) is truly looking after all pers injured in operations in a timely manner.  A bit late in the game considering the rigamole that some people injured in the 90's had to go through but it's improving and I can only imagine it getting better as the system deals with more injured people.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2006)

Hopefully,

It still has been a challenge for me, so my observations may be a bit cynical to the military, VAC, and the Government in General in regards to the care of the wounded and injured.

I am glad he did get immediate compensation, and hopefully for the full amount he deserves.  

dileas

tess


----------



## Donut (5 Oct 2006)

In a discussion with one of our injured (PT accident, not Cbt), he mentioned he was going after SISIP for exactly this, the income lost due to being unable to do his duty and stay in the sandbox.

I've honestly can't recall any of the details of the sisip coverage, anyone have the info handy?

DF

BTW, I agree with Tess, #%*$* opportunists.  How long did this file sit on a liberal desk?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (5 Oct 2006)

> In a discussion with one of our injured (*PT accident*, not Cbt), he mentioned he was going after SISIP for exactly this, the income lost due to being unable to do his duty and stay in the sandbox.



This strikes me as shockingly petty and it trivializes why the bonuses are in place.  You get HA, RA and the rest for being deployed to a s**thole and risking your neck, not for being at home due to a sports injury.  They're called bonuses for a reason and people regarding them as lost "income" that they should be compensated for are missing the entire point.


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Yes,
> 
> But not immediately.
> 
> ...



You can say that again, but now I have Cujo creating havoc for me.


----------



## Donut (5 Oct 2006)

Teddy,

I won't argue with that, just thinking that if a guy who suffered a PT accident was getting compensated by SISIP, surely someone wounded in action would get at least the same consideration.


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Oct 2006)

If you think Mr McTeague's argument is vacuous check out the blog behind the Globe and Mails online version of this story at this link

It's really sad at how ill informed, ignorant and full of bile _some_ of these people are. Logical 'for' or 'against' seem to have vanished (at that place....)

_*Sigh*_ _(he says, slipping into that state of cynicism he is so well known for...)_

Someone once told me that given an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters sooner or later one of them would end up writing Macbeth... _I wonder_... given an infinite number of NDP staffers and an infinite number of computers how long would it take to come up with a blog like the one mentioned above.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

This reminds me of earlier generations of soldiers, who by contrast saw a "million dollar wound" or a "blighty" as a good thing and didn't worry about what was in the horse's mouth.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2006)

And here is the crux of what HOM just described.  What if this injury affects him 2,5 or10 years down the line?  You think it will be easy to prove it is attributed to the wound?  :rofl: Here is my message to the MP raising a fuss.  Look deaper into the agenda they are raising, as opposed to getting news time.

HOM, I am going to PM you tonight we will talk.

dileas

tess


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Oct 2006)

There's another bit to it.

I can see that the pay is given as a result of being in a dangerous place. 

But in a sense, members who are injured, presumably through no fault of their own, and possibly as a result of doing their job a bit too diligently, are penalized for it.

I mean after all, those still 'stuck in' are getting the $, _at best_ they ducked at the right time , whereas the other guy, who was either 'wrong place wrong time' or 'pushing the envelope' a bit is now stuck at home watching Oprah, or wasting his time reading this, as the case may be... and no extra $'s.

Just wanted to toss that out there.....


----------



## FredDaHead (5 Oct 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> There's another bit to it.
> 
> I can see that the pay is given as a result of being in a dangerous place.
> 
> ...



I agree, but what about those (few/none, just a thought game) who get hurt in training, through careless, or for "reasons other than combat"? Do you go with some kind of blanket coverage whereas everyone who gets out of theater with any kind of injury gets danger pay up to the date their tour would have ended, or do you write into the law a clause that if the member was hurt outside training, or through their own fault, they don't get the danger pay?

I don't think anyone willingly gets hurt and I'm sure all our boys and girls overseas are careful enough to not get hurt through negligence, but you know there's always going to be the one asshat who will and try to collect the money while his buddies are still out there.

And are you saying a certain member of this forum actually watches _Oprah_? You might as well start questionning his manliness outright, boyo!


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Oct 2006)

As for the continuation of ALLOWANCES, I personally think that once out of theatre for whatever reasons then the allowances should cease.  as others have mentioned, why didn't the good liberal bring up this issue when his party was in power? Or is it only an issue because a family member is affected? Either way, political b*ll masquerading as concern for the troops, typical liberal hypocrite! :threat:


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Oct 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> ....but what about those (few/none, just a thought game) who get hurt in training, through careless, or for "reasons other than combat"? Do you go with some kind of blanket coverage whereas everyone who gets out of theater with any kind of injury gets danger pay up to the date their tour would have ended, or do you write into the law a clause that if the member was hurt outside training, or through their own fault, they don't get the danger pay?


Exactly, so the whole exercise of where to draw the line becomes rather a bugger doesn't it!

_I say_ give everyone a raise to the level of their Rank and IPC as if they were in theatre, make it the normal 15th and 30th trip and scrap danger pay altogether, and it'll be all okay....will start drafting memo to Treasury Board now!


----------



## warrickdll (5 Oct 2006)

No one dislikes extra pay. But pay allotted to any CF member based on days in a danger zone, days overseas, days in the field, days at sea, and so on, are not meant to cover any other situation but that which is specified. 

It should not matter whether an individual's expected 6 month tour ends after only 1 day because of a death in the family, an injury, a wound, a required posting, or just because the tour ended early, the extra pay and benefits for the tour must end (or not be spent if the pay already went into your account). 

Even pay for those hospitalized in Germany should be limited to overseas allowance, and not the actual in-theatre pay (though the 25 day extension is not egregious). As mentioned - No one dislikes extra pay - but these bonuses are not guaranteed, nor should they be. If you cannot go into the field, go to sea, dive, jump, fly, be in-theatre, then the bonuses for those activities/situations have to stop.


A different process covers permanent disabilities from wounds when it comes to money and benefits. And many complained of the system for previous CF operation, hopefully things have improved. _As an aside, the latest Macleans mentions the casualties from Yugoslavia but states that none of them were from combat... Ahhh, Peacekeeping, I guess the belligerents just had a lot of NDs_. 

However, recoverable wounds, well you get paid even though you are temporarily unserviceable. It's not like they stop in-theatre bonuses to soldiers recovering in-theatre, or stop sea pay to someone recovering from injuries in Sick Bay. 

What rationale would cover paying the same bonuses to someone recovering at home in Canada as someone recovering in Afghanistan? Should they now be receiving double bonuses?!


----------



## armywife/cadetmom (5 Oct 2006)

My humble opinion is (based on my husbands experience with this)  when you are injured over seas, being compensated by veterans affairs, isnt always easy, infact it can take YEARS...my husband was injured in Kosovo years back, and he still hasnt finished with dealing with them.  I believe that the soldiers should ATLEAST receive the perks for the remainder of the time they should have been over.  some families depend on that extra income, and to then have to face losing it, and their spouse being hurt....that has to suck.  My very personal opinion is that No Soldier should have to pay income tax.  Too many families are living pay to pay getting deeper in debt and the amount of $ paid in tax could really help families.  I know too many wives that are soo upset because there will be days left till payday, and there is no food in the house for their kids. or That the pay isnt enough to afford a car, so going by cab to town to get groceries takes a chunk making the pay go even less further.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

It's not really that hard as I see it. Member hurt in training gets nothing but what he/she was entitled to while in training and possibly through VAC if the injury is permanent. Members wounded on tour and forced to return to Canada get paid out the tour money for wounds received in contact with the enemy (to include direct contact, indirect fire, IED/mines) not to include injuries occurred to carelessness in the Rec facilities (scalding oneself with coffee, pulling muscles or hernias in the gym etc etc)There have a I covered everything.

I'm not canvassing for more money, and you're right the fact that this Liberal seems to politicising it is makes my job of selling this to you harder cause he is an a$$ hat. But I ask you why not, all politics aside I really think it's a good thing myself. One of the things I worried about most was finding a way to say overseas and failing that how do I get back as quick as possible, then next was when I get back what was I entitled to for compensation and money, the answer was SFA. That doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I agree, but what about those (few/none, just a thought game) who get hurt in training, through careless, or for "reasons other than combat"? Do you go with some kind of blanket coverage whereas everyone who gets out of theater with any kind of injury gets danger pay up to the date their tour would have ended, or do you write into the law a clause that if the member was hurt outside training, or through their own fault, they don't get the danger pay?
> 
> I don't think anyone willingly gets hurt and I'm sure all our boys and girls overseas are careful enough to not get hurt through negligence, but you know there's always going to be the one asshat who will and try to collect the money while his buddies are still out there.
> 
> And are you saying a certain member of this forum actually watches _Oprah_? You might as well start questionning his manliness outright, boyo!



Do these injured in pretraining stay with the rear party people receive a medal for the operation? What about the wounded, do they receive one?

There is your criteria.

Injured in PT.....

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

Iterator, A member that recovers overseas keeps his pay, and right he should but the guy hurt to severe to recover overseas gets nothing. I'm not saying give the guy in hospital double I'm saying give the guy forced to leave to recover what the guy in hospital overseas is getting. The only difference between the two is one guys watches the clock move and the other sits staring at the ceiling wishing he was back overseas.


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Oct 2006)

armywife/cadetmom said:
			
		

> My humble opinion is (based on my husbands experience with this)  when you are injured over seas, being compensated by veterans affairs, isnt always easy, infact it can take YEARS...my husband was injured in Kosovo years back, and he still hasnt finished with dealing with them.  I believe that the soldiers should ATLEAST receive the perks for the remainder of the time they should have been over.  some families depend on that extra income, and to then have to face losing it, and their spouse being hurt....that has to suck.  My very personal opinion is that No Soldier should have to pay income tax.  Too many families are living pay to pay getting deeper in debt and the amount of $ paid in tax could really help families.  I know too many wives that are soo upset because there will be days left till payday, and there is no food in the house for their kids. or That the pay isnt enough to afford a car, so going by cab to town to get groceries takes a chunk making the pay go even less further.



I myself was injured(not wounded) in Afghanistan in 2002 and in my dealings with DVA I had zero problems. Once all the paperwork was finished and sorted out I recieved my first check within a month. Things have improved over the years!

As for the issue of families depending on that extra pay, DON'T!  Budget as if you don't have that money as there are no guarentees that you will keep recieving it. As for not paying taxes, :boring: not even worth the effort to comment on. If a member of the CF is living paycheck to paycheck, rather then just give him more money(no taxes) maybe a little financial counselling to learn how to better budget. Living beyond ones means is the worst reason to give for not paying taxes! Sorry if that seems cold and harsh, it's not, it's just reality!


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

+1 
2Cdo,
You're bang on about the more pay and living in your means.


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Oct 2006)

*48th*

The wounded do, the sick might and the injured might as long as ...

Regarding GCS and GSM...


> ... you have served honourably, you are eligible for either award, even if you were repatriated for medical reasons directly attributable to your service. Personnel who die during their service and whose deaths are attributable to that service are also eligible....



The Rear Party might...
Regarding the GSM


> members and to members of allied forces working with the CF who deploy outside Canada  and provide direct support on a full-time basis to operations in the presence of an armed enemy.



Mirage??(not sure stand to be corrected)

Duration factor in the latter case..

More on this link


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> +1
> 2Cdo,
> You're bang on about the more pay and living in your means.



Thanks, it is due to my own ignorance as a young troopie and having no money to my name only a day or two after payday that forced me to learn how to budget. I can happily say that with retirement looming next year the only debts I will have are my monthly utilities and property taxes! Oldest boy has moved out and I'm working on the youngest ;D! It's good to know that I won't HAVE to work ever again!(But I probably will)


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

"to operations in the presence of an armed enemy."

Thats disqualifies Rear Party.


----------



## warrickdll (5 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> ... The only difference between the two is one guys watches the clock move and the other sits at the ceiling wishing he was back overseas.



Well... The difference is location, location, location.

Hey, if you are offered extra money - take it. 

The stoppage of bonuses is not meant as a punishment. And being returned for wounds is different than for other reasons, but the bonuses are for being there - not for wanting/hoping/expecting to be there.

But, as a policy, it wouldn't make sense to me that a CF member, who is still receiving their pay after all, should be paid extra because they have a recoverable wound. Especially not for the remaining duration of their tour. 

Maybe the compromise would be a portion of the bonuses for all evacuated wounded for up to 25 days (or some other apparently random number)?


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

You can argue location with me till your blue in the face. Wont change the fact that the men forced home should indeed be receiving their tour money or some form of compensation, because right now they get nothing. Well that's not true we get hooked to machines that make it so we can't leave our homes, we get hours of pain that even though our medication is free, the med barely cover the pain,  We get heaps of sympathy from those who don't have a clue as to what we have gone through, and we get removed from the guys who would do us the most good.

Sure the wounds are "Recoverabel" as you put it, bu I still believe that recoverable wounds need some sort of compensation and paying out the tour money would be just about right for all that they have to go through while "Recovering".


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Oct 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> I myself was injured(not wounded) in Afghanistan in 2002 and in my dealings with DVA I had zero problems. Once all the paperwork was finished and sorted out I received my first check within a month. Things have improved over the years!



Okay a couple of key points
1) Dealling with the VAC, depends on the case
2)Once the paperwork is finished and sorted out, can take years, thanks to 48th may not, especially the tip to get non-DND records.
3)Things have improved over the years, I will wait and see.
4) Going to University beats the heck out of watching Oprah all day
5)Find a good advocate, regimental associations are often a good source
6) Listen to the 48th, Danjou, and several others who have BTDT.
my two cents


----------



## Comdessert (5 Oct 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I smell slippery slope and politicking.  Does the fact that the honourable member's own cousin was wounded that he is only now learning of this policy?



Hey there,

First post, be gentle fellas 

It's a beautiful political maneuver, really. The Liberal Party gets to wrap itself in the flag *and* criticize (I believe unfairly) the current government for not caring about our injured soldiers. Never mind the fact that the Liberal Party was never a friend to the military, they get to hypocritically mudrake the Conservatives.

Let's hope it fails.

- CD


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

That's not what I wrote, and even if a policy came out tomorrow stating that those invalided out of theatre due to wounds would receive their hazard incentives for the duration, I would not expect anyone to risk a wound just to get out early - the risk of trading off the function of a limb for the rest of one's life isn't worth a few thousand bucks.

It's also worth observing, along with what I wrote earlier, that often the men in the thickest of the fighting would go so far as to commit offences to return to their units (eg. go AWOL from a convalescence centre and make their own way back).  So there are two sides to that coin, and judging by the comments in the media to date that hasn't changed.

And, the way soldiers are treated by various incarnations of so-called "Veterans' Affairs" organizations does piss me off.  The difficulty of obtaining just compensation for soldiers with permanent wound effects goes back hundreds of years.  It seems to be a parsimonious government tradition long observed.

But, the hazard pay should be due only as long as the risk for which it is established must be faced.  If there is to be compensation for wounds and illness and injury, it should be purely defined by the nature of the wound etc.  Otherwise there will be an ongoing bunfight over when an involuntary repatriation qualifies for hazard incentive payouts, and when it does not.


----------



## Shamrock (5 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Hey, if you are offered extra money - take it.



I agree.  

My personal opinions aside, money in is money in.

Should this pass beyond rhetoric, should be interesting to see the finagling that goes on.  Oh, the lawyers we shall employ rewriting this.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Oct 2006)

This Liberal MP (and 99% of all other MPs regardless of party affiliation) would probably not have known or cared about stopping allowances once an injured member has left the theatre if a relative had not been wounded.  But if the government was to continue the allowances until the scheduled tour end date, how do they determine eligibility?  Should it only be continued for those who are medically repatted for injuries due to military service? 

Granted I have no experience with the mission in Afghanistan, but if I remember correctly one of the principles of service in a "special duty area" was that any injury, illness or death that occurred was to be judged attributable to military service.  However, back then, DNBI was the major cause of casualties.  To add some perspective, some examples of this that I have seen over the years are:

a.  Myocardial infraction (heart attack) while in Cyprus.  He applied for pension while still serving and he got it (and several years worth of back pension) shortly after returning from additional tours in Yugo.

b.  Heart attack in Egypt.

c.  Brain tumour that was discovered in Cyprus.  Member died.

d.  Hearing loss and balance problems due to insect that entered via ear canal while in Sharm el Sheik (popular resort for scuba and snorkeling) during tour in Egypt.

e.  Complications following appendectomy in Egypt.  

f.  Tripped coming out of shower trailer and severe fracture of radius and ulna (lower arm).  Some nerve damage as well.

g.  Loss of left ring finger due to traumatic amputation.  It was snagged and pulled off when he jumped down from the roof rack of a DND owned minibus.

These few examples, that I have personal knowledge, all left before the end of their tours for medical reasons.  There are many others, of which I am aware, who also repatted early due to medical reasons, but I have no specific knowledge if they suffered permanent disability and were eligible for pension.  Just because an injury is not sustained due to enemy action does not mean that it is the fault of the casualty.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

Brad I apologise I did a knee jerk reply and I didn't read what you were saying in the light you meant it in.

Blackadder I outlined simplistically in a post how it should work...minus how the legals would work it of course.


----------



## big bad john (5 Oct 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/RTGAM.20061005.wxdanger05/BNStory/National/home

Adding insult to injury? Wounded soldiers have pay cut
GLORIA GALLOWAY 

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The government must stop docking danger pay from soldiers who are injured while fighting for Canada in places like Afghanistan, a Liberal MP said yesterday.

Wounded members of the Canadian Forces "are no longer given the benefit of the danger pay nor the tax-exempt status, which I think is extraordinarily harsh and shows a broken faith with our troops," said Dan McTeague, an MP from Scarborough.

"I think every Canadian who finds out . . . that our wounded soldiers are being cut off, are being docked that kind of pay, will be outraged."

Canadian Forces personnel serving overseas are given extra pay, on top of their normal salaries, to account for the hardship and risk. Those who are currently serving their second tour of duty in Kandahar, for instance, receive $2,111 a month, tax-free, above their regular pay. In addition, those on high-risk missions are given an income-tax exemption of up to $6,647 a month.
 That ends if a soldier's wounds are so severe that he or she must be removed from the theatre of war.

Mr. McTeague found out about the policy when his cousin's 20-year-old son was seriously injured last month in a suicide bombing in Kandahar.

"I don't think it speaks well to morale that a wounded soldier is told that, once they leave the operation, once they leave their battalion, once they leave Afghanistan, that they are effectively cut off," he told reporters yesterday.

"They have been signed up for the six-month period. We should honour that contract and we should retroactively pay all of those wounded soldiers who find themselves in this situation."

But the Conservative government does not seem prepared to act on Mr. McTeague's concern, and pointed out that the practice of stopping danger pay for the injured troops began when the Liberals were in power.

"Canada's new government fully supports our brave men and women in uniform. Our troops receive extra pay for the risks and hardships they face while deployed overseas," said Etienne Allard, a spokesman for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

"When our soldiers return to Canada, they are no longer eligible for this type of operational allowance. We don't have any plans to change the current policy which has been in place since 1995." -- Gloria Galloway


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2006)

"I find it deplorable," said Liberal MP Dan McTeague  (Pickering-Scarborough East). "If they're wounded, there's no way under the sun they should find themselves cut off. It looks like we're cheap or we don't care.

"If we've got $13 billion (surplus) bucks to put down towards our debt, surely we have enough money to restore the funding to our wounded _soldiers who've taken a bullet for their country_."  


The moment Canada's injured are sent to Germany or to Canada for medical treatment they are no longer entitled to "operational allowance" that adds $2,111 to monthly pay. 

That allowance, the same regardless of rank, compensates soldiers for being away from home and for mission hardships and risks, defence spokesperson John Knoll said. Allowance is paid for "being in that place and under those conditions." 

The military can continue the allowance for up to 25 days after a soldier leaves Afghanistan and usually does. After that, it ends.

Injured soldiers also lose tax-free status. In Afghanistan, soldiers do not pay income tax on earnings up to $6,647 a month. That perk disappears if they are hurt and returned home. 

Defence officials do note that, unlike many in civilian jobs, injured soldiers still collect their base salary and retain benefits while recovering.

McTeague argues the injured should be compensated for the time they were to be in Afghanistan, usually "a six-month commitment. We should retroactively pay all those wounded soldiers.

"The country owes it to them (and) ... the Prime Minister has an opportunity to do that."

A cousin of McTeague's was severely wounded in an Afghan suicide bombing last month. He's recovering at Toronto's Sunnybrook Hospital.

Interesting points Mister McTeague.

I appreciate your care of us wounded soldiers.  I have respect that you have had a family member involved.  But I have a wee bit of a problem with your agenda.  Is it for the troops, or for yourself.....


After winning the Liberal nomination for the federal riding of Ontario, which was comprised of the towns of Ajax, Pickering and Whitby east of Toronto, Dan was elected as the Member of Parliament for Ontario Riding in the October 25, 1993 general election.  In 1997, Mr. Acreage was re-elected in the newly redistributed riding of Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge a riding he won again on the November, 2000 General Election with an increased majority. In 2004 Mr. McTeague was re-elected to the new riding of Pickering Scarborough East.


On New Year's Eve 1994, Privates Philip Badanai (Royal Canadian Regiment) and John Tescione (48th Highlanders) were returning from an escort mission through a small village in Croatia, when 25 Serb soldiers suddenly ambushed them. The Serbs riddled the jeep with small arms fire with over 100 hits.  Badanai although hit 3 times, twice in his back, was able to drive the vehicle to the main camp saving the life of Tescione who was hit 7 times, with 4 rounds to his head.


Interesting, as I stated before, my pay was stripped even before I landed on my own _terra firma_, however, as a Peacekeeper under the liberal Government, I was not allowed my "Danger Pay".  However, you demand that from the current government.

Please amuse me, and answer my question, Mr McTeague.   Would you request a retroactive payment to the Blue hatted mannequins, that we were, the same pay?   I await an answer, and payment of the ducats stripped from me that you are championing for...

dileas

tess


----------



## 3rd Horseman (5 Oct 2006)

Danger pay is just that...Danger pay. It should end on departure from the danger. That does not mean I dont think some form of recover or pain and suffering payment should not be applicable to the wounded recovering at home. Now if the system worked the way it should the DVA system would activivate within 30 days of arrival if not sooner and DVA expidited system would have DVA pension kick in within 30 days. That would I suppose be the answer. It is a whole new kettle of fish we are talking about it has never been done in the past I dont see a reason to change. That IMHO as a soldier who was wounded.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Oct 2006)

> Now if the system worked the way it should the DVA system would activivate within 30 days of arrival if not sooner and DVA expidited system would have DVA pension kick in within 30 days. That would I suppose be the answer. It is a whole new kettle of fish we are talking about it has never been done in the past I dont see a reason to change. That IMHO as a soldier who was wounded.



The pay has been budgeted to the Military, the regiment, what happens to the few coins collected when one is wounded?

Now HOM has explained, he willnot get a VAC Payment, should he be punished for being injured  and losing that "danger" pay?   He left because of the dang danger....he is owed it until the end of contract.

I say bloody yes!

dileas

tess


----------



## 3rd Horseman (5 Oct 2006)

48th I hear ya,

   I cant figure out why the argument exists that VAC wont be their? If VAC did its job as directed it would be at the hospital bed within days of the soldiers arrival back in Canada. The appropriate paper would be filed and an expedited VAC decision would be sought and a payment would occur as fast as 30 to 45 days. Would that not work if what I have detailed was the way VAC operated?


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

I completely agree that there should be a retroactive pay to those wounded in contact all the way back to the 50's.

And I agree this is a crappy way to bring up the issue, an opposing party using it for public gain and mud smearing But I do think it is an important issue and one that although might not deserve to be in the for front of the public eye I o believe it should be in the forefront of issue in NDHQ and in our politicians minds.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

3rd Horsemen you didn't read my initial post did you, If the wound will not cause permanent disability you do not get anything. If you need to get your wounds pack for 3 months but those wounds are essentially cosmetic you will get evaced but guess what, you don't get a VAC pension in fact you get squat. See where the argument lies, many wounded are removed from theater because their wounds require more care then the Role 3 can provide but they do not incur long term disability to the soldier so essential as was pointed out they are cut off.


----------



## Gunner (5 Oct 2006)

Gents, 

I think you are confusing alot of different issues here and lumping it all together as if it were one and the same:

a.  Should soldiers wounded due to enemy action continue to receive Hardship, Risk and Foreign Service Premium?  No, of course not, they are no longer serving in the theatre of operations and there is no entitlement.  This is not additional pay, these benefits are to compensate you for the hardship of living in an operational theatre, the increased risk associated with the deployment and the generic FSP that all government employees receive.  Its purpose is not to compensate for physical or mental suffering from a wound.

b.  Should a soldier receive financial compensation for being wounded in action?  I was originally against this but I am now sitting on the fence.  Someone mentioned that if a soldier is injured on the first day in theatre, they should receive the full 6 months of benefits (above) but if they are wounded on their last day in theatre, they only get an additional day.  This doesn't make sense at all.  You either get a lump sum for being wounded or you don't.  No middle ground that would provide for a graduated scale of financial compensation (you either get it or you don't).  The graduated scales are the purview of SISIP and VAC (loss of limbs provide x dollars, etc).  Hence, if anything is given, it must be a lump sum.  1K, 5K or 10K, it doesn't matter to me as the amount is minor in the grand scheme.

c.  SISIP Benefits.  If you lose parts of your body or your life, your NOK receive their money very quickly.  No issues with SISIP.

d.  VAC benefits.  There is absolutely no requirement for VAC to be waiting for a wounded soldier to get off the plane.  I've been involved on the periphery for wounded soldiers and there has been relatively few instances of VAC not going above and beyond what is required of them.  As HOM stated, if you fully recover from your wounds, you probably won't receive anything from VAC.  Why would you?  If you develop problems later in life (eg arthritis), they will be there to help you at that time.  I do not doubt one second the horror stories of dealing with VAC (listen to Bruce Henwood for the reality of the 90s) but I will stress once again, in my opinion, VAC has been very helpful in the support to soldiers over the last 10 months.  If you are wounded, and do not believe you are being properly supported, talk with your assisting officer right away.  If he can't help you, complain to the first general officer who comes through your door.

Edited to clear up some very bad grammar.


----------



## big bad john (5 Oct 2006)

I thought that you might be interested in this release from the MOD today.  Particularly the extension of pay Allowances compared to Canada's for wounded Troops.  Note that this is only in effect while in hospital.


http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/NewWelfarePackageForServiceHospitalInpatients.htm

New welfare package for service hospital in-patients
5 Oct 06 
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Derek Twigg, today (5 October 2006) announced the implementation of a welfare package for service hospital in-patients.




The new package focuses on operational casualties at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine and the Defence Medical Services Rehabilitation Centre Headley Court.

The package includes a range of measures that will replicate the 'Operational Welfare Package' for those in hospital and will improve financial assistance to the families of those injured. 



Mr Twigg said:

"The healthcare our Service personnel get is exemplary. We are always looking at ways to improve the support we provide to our people and I am pleased that this work, which has been ongoing since August, has now come to fruition. 

"As a result we are able to extend the welfare package to ensure that their stay in hospital is more comfortable and that we provide further support to the families. However we are not complacent and we are constantly enhancing the entire welfare package on offer."

The measures include: 

A daily financial allowance for all in-patients of £5 per day for UK patients and £10 per day for those overseas. 
An improvement to already extant funded travel support provided to the families of those hospitalised. 
Free delivery of postal packets over the Christmas period in line with the arrangements extant in operational theatres. 
The extension of Longer Service Separation Allowance (LSSA), Longer Service at Sea Bonus (LSSB) and Longer Separation Allowance (LSA) to include all those treated as in-patients. 
Improvements to access to television, Army Library Service facilities and broadband internet connections.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Oct 2006)

Gunner I said the first day last thing based on receiving tour allotted pay, howere you put forth a good argument for an allotted amount of money for wounded inaction...one that bears being looked at.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2006)

>Brad I apologise I did a knee jerk reply and I didn't read what you were saying in the light you meant it in.

No apology is necessary.  I have not and likely will never have to face the stress of bombs and bullets.  The worst threat I face is the traffic on the Port Mann Bridge.  However, thank you for coming back with that.


----------



## Gunner (6 Oct 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> I thought that you might be interested in this release from the MOD today.  Particularly the extension of pay Allowances compared to Canada's for wounded Troops.  Note that this is only in effect while in hospital.



BBJ, 

Trying to compare compensation and benefits between Canada, the UK and the US is like comparing apples, oranges and bananas.  It is a falacious argument even to enter it into the discussion.

I will stand behind what Canada does for its killed and wounded soldiers and most other western countries.  We have nothing to be ashamed of and this whole discussion centres around political opportunism.

Cheers,


----------



## Gunner (6 Oct 2006)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/centre/pdf/ddbenefits_e.pdf

The link will provide you with an overview of the Death and Disability Programs and Services that you and your family are/may be entitled to should you be killed, wounded or injured in service of our country.  The programs and services are constantly changing so don't be afraid to ask your assisting officer, your commanding officer, etc about a benefit or situation you face.  

Just one last point on this subject. Make sure you have your affairs in order before going overseas:

- make sure you NOK Notification form is up to date.  Make sure your NOK is someone responsible and not the whiskey dolly you picked up at the bar one week prior to deployment because they promised to "love you long time".  If you are young, make it your mother/father, not someone young and irresponsible.
- don't confuse your designated NOK notification with the beneficiaries of your SISIP, SDB, etc, etc.  They are not one and the same.
- make sure your CF will is up to date (if you are doing anything other than leaving everything to your NOK, get a proper will drawn up by a lawyer).
- if you don't want to be a vegetable for the rest of your life, make sure you protect yourself with a living will (see point on wills).
- make sure your SISIP life insurance is maximized for at least the duration of your deployment. It's not about you, its about the future of your family.
- if you are ever in doubt about your beneficiaries or your NOK at any time during your deployment period, make sure you immediately change or address the issue.  You never know when you will run out of time.

The legacy that you leave is a personal responsibility, not the CF's.  Therefore, make sure you adequately address it before it is too late - you owe it to your family.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

Well... I've been reading through all these well put arguments and points and have found too many good points to quote in one post... so here's just my two cents.

I was wounded less then a kilometer from the enemy, at 5 am, just after eating breakfast, just after waking up, by shrapnel from a 30mm round fired from a chain gun suspended beneath an allied forces ground support aircraft (AKA, the A-10).  This situation is commonly known as "Friendly Fire"... Don't let the name fool you, there was nothing friendly about it.

As a result of the High Explosive Incendiary rounds landing 5 feet behind me, I have several shrapnel wounds on my legs, back and right arm... 6 on these wounds are still being packed. 2 of them still contain metal… and 2 are within .5 cm from my kidneys… those are also the ones with the metal.

So, we've established that my wounds were not from combat, but I was in a combat zone and I wasn't doing anything heroic during or immediately before the incident, nor was I doing anything that could be considered "risking my tour" (at least not anymore than the other 30+ people who were wounded at the same time)

So I figure I was prematurely removed from my tour by forces beyond my control, as were a few others who were with me.

Does that entitle me to the remainder of my overseas pay?  Perhaps not... ‘Cause I could recover and return before the end of my contract as a reserve augmentee... or not.

I have yet to deal with SISIP and DVA regarding my wounds and how they will be assessed, but I am confident it will be fair. So I’m not too concerned.

As for the loss of 5 months of overseas pay: 

As I’ve read in other quotes; soldiers shouldn’t rely on the overseas bonuses as they are “bonuses”… But you must realize, to a reservist, this is an incentive.  For some of us it a way to bolster our regular (military) pay so that it matches (or at least comes close to) the money we could have potentially made in our civilian professions; which, I might add, we can’t return to if sent home injured and on sick leave, until our contract ends. (yet more loss of income… which, incidentally, isn’t covered by DVA or SISIP)

Am I saying I’m financially suffering now because of the lack of extra income? No, not really.  It’s only $10,000 less I can put away for a house and a wedding… but that’s a personal issue.  I am still well within my means.

But the point I’m trying to make is, while it’s just a bonus to some regular force members who have a regular income and are paying into a pension, for reservists, who aren’t paying into pensions and who’s possible civi pensions don’t cover ‘act of war’, the bonus is something we rely on to recoup lost income for leaving civilian employment for the opportunity to server our country overseas and employ the skills we practice (on a part time basis).

Don’t take this as me being disenchanted or even ungrateful for still being alive. And lord knows I’d trade every cent of my bonus and even my regular pay for the lives of those who were lost that day and the day before.  

And I don’t mean to say that reservists deserve it more than regular force, its just perspective. There may be regular force members for whom this tour represented tuition money, or house money or debt reconciliation.  My point is that it shouldn’t be trivialized; it is still a loss of expected income.

To sum up; As a wounded soldier who has lost 5/6th of his tour I can’t say I disagree with this idea and I don’t think you’d hear a lot of arguments from anyone who has had their tour cut short.

</semi-pointless rant>

P.S. Sorry about the novel.


----------



## Gunner (6 Oct 2006)

RHFC_piper,



> For some of us it a way to bolster our regular (military) pay so that it matches (or at least comes close to) the money we could have potentially made in our civilian professions; which, I might add, we can’t return to if sent home injured and on sick leave, until our contract ends. (yet more loss of income… which, incidentally, isn’t covered by DVA or SISIP)



The important aspect is the CF will cover you for the period you are recovering, recuperating, and rehabilating (see section 19 of the link).  If you are fully recovered and want to return to work prior to the end date of your contract, the military will not keep you bound to the contract.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2006)

RHFC, you were wounded in combat operations I would include FF as combat wounds


----------



## big bad john (6 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> RHFC, you were wounded in combat operations I would include FF as combat wounds



+1


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> RHFC_piper,
> 
> The important aspect is the CF will cover you for the period you are recovering, recuperating, and rehabilating (see section 19 of the link).  If you are fully recovered and want to return to work prior to the end date of your contract, the military will not keep you bound to the contract.



The point is; the military is now my only coverage.  There aren't many employers in the civilian sector that would want to deal with a freshly wounded, PTSD ladened, potential health insurance leech... even though it sounds like discrimination, its hard to prove when they can easily say they hired someone more qualified. and no matter how qualified you think you are, there's always someone more so... damnit, I'm ranting again.

Anyway, although its true that I could potentially terminate my contract early and seek more gainful employment elsewhere, I wouldn't be fit enough to do this until about a month before my contract runs out anyway.  In the mean time, I'm still out at least $9000 in bonus-bling from not being in the sandbox.

But as I've said before; I am prepared for this. I just now have to re-budget and save up another year for the house I was going to buy in March of 07.  Again, I can still buy food, gas, clothes, etc... so its just another set back.

My point, reiterated, is that now, due to an incident beyond my control, not only will I have chronic problems, but my plans will be delayed for an indeterminent amount of time.  And, if someone were to say "Hey, you signed up for 12 months, six of which are in danger, and you got hit and sent home, so we will horour the rest of you contract. Enjoy."  I wouldn't be saying no.

But in the same respect; I am greatful that they aren't saying "Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya. see ya laters, toon."
I appreciate all the help and attention, and while I'm healing I hope to help others from the battlegroup as much as I can, I can just understand why people think this whole concept is acceptable.  

I can also see why people think this is unacceptable. As the old saying goes; "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
But thats for another rant.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2006)

Gunner,

You present very valid points.  Very nice options, via programs available, and the help one receives.

We preach about lessons learned from the troops.  That they should bring back their knowledge of the combat, and teach the troops of the future.

You are getting that right now.  Gunner I am a soldier wounded, in the '90s.  HOM and RHFC_piper are troops wounded in "the sandbox".

We are telling you, that regardless of the fact that all of these dandy programs are available, the immediate answer everyone gets is;  You are fine and entitled to nothing.

Your analogy;



> d.  VAC benefits.  There is absolutely no requirement for VAC to be waiting for a wounded soldier to get off the plane.  I've been involved on the periphery for wounded soldiers and there has been relatively few instances of VAC not going above and beyond what is required of them.  As HOM stated, if you fully recover from your wounds, you probably won't receive anything from VAC.  Why would you?  If you develop problems later in life (eg arthritis), they will be there to help you at that time.  I do not doubt one second the horror stories of dealing with VAC (listen to Bruce Henwood for the reality of the 90s) but I will stress once again, in my opinion, VAC has been very helpful in the support to soldiers over the last 10 months.  If you are wounded, and do not believe you are being properly supported, talk with your assisting officer right away.  If he can't help you, complain to the first general officer who comes through your door.



That's right, they do not need to be there, because if they are and you are entitled to benefits you would get them from the time you signed their papers.  Everyday lost by you, is a dollar saved by them.



> If you develop problems later in life (eg arthritis), they will be there to help you at that time.



Really eh, well maybe someone should have advised them of this when I finally broke down, and had to seek help for PTSD 2 years ago.  I was put through hell.  I was told the likes of _"you are a young whipper snapper, and not a priority for us right now"_.  This was 2004, not the '90s.

It angers me to no avail, when I hear the troops talking about what they have to go through, and then other stating that we must have done something wrong and the establishment is correct.  It all works well....really it does, and tess you were wounded way back when and things have changed.

Horse Pucky.

The idea is not about reaciving beer money from the VAC, it is to seek the qualified help of professionals; treatment.  If any of these troops develope any sort of reaction, since they were deemed "healed" they must line up with the rest of the MIR commandos, seeking help for blisters.  They are not rushed to the front of the line, they do not see any specialist for the particular wounds.  This is what we seek.  Not the extra pay, or the slap on the back from people.

And to lead us back onto the thread, to the MPs, Mr. McTeague and Mr. Stoffer, that are challenging the government regarding pay, what is it you are really seeking?

I welcome your response.

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

*Wounded ... and a pay cut*

Toronto Star (full article)
Oct. 6, 2006. 05:24 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—His body torn apart by shrapnel, on painkillers and facing months of rehabilitation, Trooper Jeffrey Hunter had been in a German hospital just hours when he was given the news — he was losing his danger pay.

"They just went in and told him he's not getting it because he's not in theatre anymore," said his father Bill Hunter, of Aurora.

"This is a kid that may not walk again, we don't know. He could wind up losing one of the legs from infection ... and they go in and tell him he's not going to get his danger pay.

"When does the danger end for him? I don't understand this," he said angrily.

His 23-year-old son, who arrived in Afghanistan in August, was left badly wounded in Tuesday's attack west of Kandahar that killed two of his fellow soldiers.

He was airlifted to Landstuhl, Germany, for advanced medical care. Yesterday, to add to his already long list of worries, military officials added another — they confirmed he was no longer entitled to his "operational allowances."

Those allowances — totalling $2,111 a month for soldiers serving in Afghanistan — are meant to compensate for the hardships and risks of the mission.

But under military rules, if a soldier is injured and removed from Afghanistan, that soldier will lose the right to collect these financial perks, which can boost monthly pay by more than 30 per cent.

As well, the salary soldiers earn in Afghanistan is tax-free and that perk disappears, too.

But the tough message delivered to the wounded soldier yesterday angered his father and left him questioning the military's support for its injured troops.

"He hadn't been there six hours," Hunter said yesterday.

"He's in a lot of pain and I've got someone from the military going in and telling him they're not going to give him his danger pay. ... This is not right.

"He's going to have a long-time therapy, a lot longer than the six months he was sent away for in Afghanistan," Hunter said. "Why aren't these kids getting danger pay?"

Military officials declined to comment on the specifics of Hunter's case. They noted that the defence department has the discretion to continue to pay the military allowance for an extra 25 days — and usually does — but there is no indication yet that Hunter will receive it.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East) has been leading the push to have the "insensitive" policy overturned, saying injured soldiers should continue to collect the financial incentives until their tour of duty was due to end.

Officials with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor have so far dismissed calls to rethink the policy and accused opposition MPs of trying to "mislead" the public.

But Hunter's plight — a situation faced by dozens of other wounded soldiers — puts a human face on a policy that risks ensnaring the Conservatives in another public relations nightmare on the Afghanistan issue.

The family's concerns also offer a glimpse into a largely unseen side of Canada's war in Afghanistan — the trauma and turmoil of the wounded soldiers and their distraught families. So far, more than 150 Canadian soldiers have been injured in the conflict since 2001, compared with the 39 killed.

"I don't want to be a spokesperson but there are other families out there ... the government should be supporting us now in our time of need," said Hunter, a retired 31-year veteran of the Toronto police force.

But even this father of three admits he's been badly jarred by his family nightmare that started with a phone call from a military chaplain in Kandahar.

"The padre asks who you are. He said, `I have Jeffrey here and he wants to talk to you,' and they put him on the phone," Hunter recalled.

"Through his yelling and screaming, he told us he had been wounded and his legs were broken. Then they took the phone off and took him into surgery," he said.

His son, a member of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, was one of several soldiers providing security for road construction near Kandahar when insurgents attacked with mortars, rocket propelled grenades and small arms fire. Sgt. Craig Paul Gillam and Cpl. Robert Thomas James Mitchell were killed.

Hunter survived the attack but suffered a shattered leg and shrapnel wounds across his body, his father said.

The wounded soldier has since been able to call his family from his hospital bed in Germany.

"He said, `Dad, I'm not in good shape. When you see me, I don't look good,'" Hunter recalled.

He's expected to be flown to Ottawa Saturday and later transferred to Toronto's Sunnybrook for follow-up treatment.

But to add insult to injury, his parents were told yesterday that they would have to pay their own expenses to get to Ottawa to meet their son.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2006)

*Wounded ... and a pay cut*

Toronto Star (full article)
Oct. 6, 2006. 05:24 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU




Sadly, that article does a lot of damage to the CF.  It is shoddy journalism and doesn't put the soldier, nor his family, in a good light.  It makes it look like our Troops are going over to Afghanistan with purely mercenary motives.  It makes no mention of any of the other benefits in place to assist our wounded.  No mention of SISIP, DVA benefits, Pensions that kick in immediately (after being approved and backdated), etc.  Preying on a families grief derails the truth.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sadly, that article does a lot of damage to the CF.  It is shoddy journalism and doesn't put the soldier, nor his family, in a good light.  It makes it look like our Troops are going over to Afghanistan with purely mercenary motives.  It makes no mention of any of the other benefits in place to assist our wounded.  No mention of SISIP, DVA benefits, Pensions that kick in immediately (after being approved and backdated), etc.  Preying on a families grief derails the truth.



I agree completely.  When I explained the situation to my family, for the most part, they understood why I was no longer entitled to the "overseas" bonuses, as I was no longer overseas.  

I posted this article simply because it illustrate the frustration felt by all familys and friends of wounded soldiers.

Consider how your family would feel if you were in the place of a wounded soldier sent home.  (Not directed at you George, but to everyone)

This is just another perspective of this issue.


----------



## 043 (6 Oct 2006)

Why should there pay continue??? Hazard pay ends when you leave the SDA anyways. Just because someone is wounded doesn't mean it should continue!!!!!! What a crock, sadly, the civilians are uninformed. SISIP may not cover wages lost but DVA will compensate.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> *Wounded ... and a pay cut*
> 
> Toronto Star (full article)
> Oct. 6, 2006. 05:24 AM
> ...



As opposed to the shoddy treatment that is dealt to some that are wounded?



> No mention of SISIP, DVA benefits, Pensions that kick in immediately (after being approved and backdated), etc.  Preying on a families grief derails the truth.



Here,

I will scan and post some of the letters I received over the years from both groups that you mentioned, some as recent as a year ago, and we will see if it is shoddy journalism, or the treatment of the wounded by our Government.




			
				2023 said:
			
		

> Why should there pay continue??? Hazard pay ends when you leave the SDA anyways. Just because someone is wounded doesn't mean it should continue!!!!!! What a crock, sadly, the civilians are uninformed. SISIP may not cover wages lost but DVA will compensate.



Really, and you have proof of this first hand, correct?  I can tell you it is not always immediate from the DVA.  And I am not talking about compensation, but treatment as well.

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> SISIP may not cover wages lost but DVA will compensate.



Nope.. Neither will cover loss of danger pay as it is a bonus.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2006)

Tess

I didn't want to 'hijack' the topic from loss of 'Danger Pay' to the problems faced in 'fighting with DVA' to get benefits and pensions.  That is a whole topic in itself.  It is a serious concern that has to be addressed by the Government.  In talks with you, and others, it has become evident that DVA has serious bureaucratic problems in identifying who and who is not a Veteran and their perception that unless you are a WW I, WW II or Korea Veteran, you take the backseat or don't even deserve a seat at all......But that is for a whole different thread.


----------



## fbr2o75 (6 Oct 2006)

But to add insult to injury, his parents were told yesterday that they would have to pay their own expenses to get to Ottawa to meet their son.


This is what really upsets me the most!


----------



## Gunner (6 Oct 2006)

> We are telling you, that regardless of the fact that all of these dandy programs are available, the immediate answer everyone gets is;  You are fine and entitled to nothing.



If you are wounded or injured in an operational theatre and are expected to make a full recovery, than you are correct and you not entitled to anything.  Why would you be?  As I stated above, I am not necessarily against a lump sum payment for someone wounded in theatre but paying out their benefits to the end of their tour is not the answer.



> Really eh, well maybe someone should have advised them of this when I finally broke down, and had to seek help for PTSD 2 years ago.  I was put through hell.  I was told the likes of "you are a young whipper snapper, and not a priority for us right now".  This was 2004, not the '90s.



I told you before, I can't comment on your particular case because I don't have any of your details of who you saw, when and what responses you received.

Remaining comments severed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2006)

I'm not opposed to hijacking the thread.  I think all publicity - even, maybe especially the bad stuff, can do naught but good if it helps to focus public attention on VAC's (to date) abysmal support for wounded vets.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> But to add insult to injury, his parents were told yesterday that they would have to pay their own expenses to get to Ottawa to meet their son.
> 
> 
> This is what really upsets me the most!



Well... as horrible as it sounds, its wholey inaccurate.  My Parents, who travelled from Hanover to Sunny Brook Hospital, My Fiance, who came from Waterloo and even my sister who lives in Toronto, have been able to claim all their travel expences for when they came to visit me when I got home from Germany.

Granted, they did have to pay initially.


----------



## fbr2o75 (6 Oct 2006)

Thanks for the update that sounds more beleivable. In my civvie job it has happened where we have had a driver have an accident, heart attack etc, out of province and our first priority was o get the family there. While realising not everyone has the finanicial means to do so.


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2006)

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the update that sounds more believable. In my civvies job it has happened where we have had a driver have an accident, heart attack etc, out of province and our first priority was o get the family there. While realising not everyone has the financial means to do so.



Yeah, what does happen in the case of the immediate relatives not having access to (sometimes large) funds to travel/hotel in the event someone is injured? Is there a contact group people can approach?

I ask this, because when I last came out of Viet Nam, it was on the basis of my father being in critical condition in the hospital and my mother had contacted the American Red Cross asking if they could get the information to me. They (Marines) flew a helicopter in, picked me up in the middle of a sweep/firefight, flew me to Okinawa, bumped an officer on the next flight to the US. They had me in Travis AFB less than 2 hours, the American Red Cross bought me a ticket to Minneapolis, and on to Winnipeg. It was for me to reimburse the American Red Cross for the flight on a voluntary basis. Quite impressive.


----------



## geo (6 Oct 2006)

Opposition party politicking is a perogative of the opposition party and they are welcome to sound off on any subject they wish.  Always been and always will be.

There have been tons of grievances over the years from individuals who feel they are entitled to some form of allowance when the regulations say otherwise.... Always been and always will be.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2006)

Well the big guy agrees with the MP's,

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061006/danger_pay_061005/20061006?hub=TopStories

He made an announcement on Canada Am today, in that the military is looking into the removal of dangerpay.

dileas

tess


----------



## 043 (6 Oct 2006)

Really, and you have proof of this first hand, correct?  I can tell you it is not always immediate from the DVA.  And I am not talking about compensation, but treatment as well.

dileas

tess

[/quote]

First hand, nope, but my wife was injured in Kabul on RO and was repatted. SISIP wouldn't cover lost wages. DVA, it isn't immediate but it is there....and getting much much better than what it was say 10 yrs ago.


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Oct 2006)

Ref 48th's post above.. 



> Canada's military commander says the armed forces are working to ensure wounded Canadian soldiers continue to receive danger pay after they leave the theatre.



You know, it's not like I'm looking for any favours but, really, I vote for Rick Hillier as 'Boss of the Year'. Really, two... three days after the issue hits the street and the guy's already on it... fairly impressive.

I hope it works out, I hope the members in question get a fair deal...


----------



## 043 (6 Oct 2006)

Yeah, the Boss is GTG!


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2006)

> DVA, it isn't immediate but it is there....and getting much much better than what it was say 10 yrs ago.



No they, absolutely, are not better than ten years ago.


dileas

tess


----------



## Hunter (6 Oct 2006)

I was watching Canada AM this morning and The Boss was awesome.  He didn't even wait to hear the end of the question before he made it clear that he was geting it sorted out, and it would be done so in short order.  

I really hope he gets into politics when he finishes his military career


----------



## 3rd Herd (6 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> No they, absolutely, are not better than ten years ago.
> 
> 
> dileas
> ...



I second this motion.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2006)

Hunter said:
			
		

> I really hope he gets into politics when he finishes his military career



Excuse me?  He is already playing 'politics'.

I hate to be negative about this, but the CDS has been on Tour several times and he knows full well what Danger Pay is and how it is administered.  This is nothing new to him.  The cries of soldiers who are ill-informed and claiming discrimination to allowances that they are not entitled to have been noticed by an equally less knowledgeable Press.  The CDS knows the rules.  Now he is playing 'Politician' in saying what he has.  He could have had something done a long time ago, not react to the waillings of the Press now


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Oct 2006)

I don't think you are being negative Mr Wallace, I think you are right. But I don't think that there's anything in CDS's pronouncement that is wrong.

The CDS _is_ a politician. Is there a General (at war) in history who has not, at some level, been a politician? Has there ever been a CDS that has not been? Hell, in this army, there are a lot of Colonels that are politicians (one need not confine the search to 'Disneyland am Rideau' to find them, either).

Of course things like this could have been solved a long time ago. I doubt though, anyone really identified it as a problem a long time ago.

I think, once the 'problem' surfaced that CDS and/or his staff thought, out of a combination of sincere desire to be fair and, yes, even some modicum of cynical opportunism, "it is time to make a splash".

_End of the day_, Hillier looks good, CF looks good, (hopefully) guys like HoM get a bit of loot and plugs (like me) say "Cool, the Boss is cool".

Down side????? Anyone?... Anyone?.... Bueller?

But then again, I think Machiavelli was 'right on' too...


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> I vote for Rick Hillier as 'Boss of the Year'.



He has my vote.

 



			
				cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Down side????? Anyone?... Anyone?.... Bueller?



I would like someone here to sight specific problems this payout will 'cause other than the 'Its not fair, your're back home' issue.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just need a reasonable devils advocate.

_Modified 'cause I had more thoughts in my head and didn't want to post twice in a row._


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2006)

I, along with many others, believe we are in a generation*s* long war; we will, _perforce_, have a steady stream of casualties: dozens KIA, hundreds WIA and as many _’stressed’_ year after year after year.

Rather than reacting and having the CDS propose a quick fix here and there – using and *abusing* the wrong budget, we need the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, The Honourable Gregory Francis Thompson, P.C., M.P.  (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=department/message/thompson ) to get his officials off their fat asses and kick them into the planning mode.

Veterans of this new, long, long war deserve support programmes just as much as did their grandfathers when they returned home in 1945.  It will not be as costly because there will be hundreds of thousands, not a million, veterans of *active service*.

A new VA _regime_ needs to be put in place which will ‘support’ all veterans of *active service* and which will provide special levels of support to war widows/widowers and children (e.g. scholarship funds for post secondary education for the children of our war dead – available even if the widow/widower does remarry) and for the wounded and _stressed_ (financial support for rehabilitation periods, free education and job training, preferential employment in the public service, etc).

The CDS should not be misusing DND’s personnel budget to solve VAC’s problem, which I suggest is a combination of inertia and idleness.

We may need to start by ensuring that personnel posted to the SW Asia theatre of operations are, indeed, on *active service*.


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> The CDS should not be misusing DND’s personnel budget to solve VAC’s problem, which I suggest is a combination of inertia and idleness.



As much as I agree with just about everything you wrote (especially about this being a generational conflict, and the amount of wounded), I don't see this as a way of solving a VAC problem, it's a loss of income problem.  It's not so much that they're going to pay out from a budget as much as they are going to choose not to discontinue paying an already allotted sum.  Meaning, if no one was ever injured, this money would still be going to those soldiers.

In the case of wounded soldiers being paid they're lost overseas bonuses from previous tours; that does seem to be a VAC concern, which the govenment will have to pay anyway.

But it leave the question; How far back do you go? How long will it take? Will it end up damaging the federal budget? and will it be fair (intrest, etc.)?

Just a thought.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2006)

Edward makes many good points ones that need to be addressed, I don't think for a second that this is a quick fix answer, I do not agree with just throwing money at it to shut it up, that is never the solution.



			
				cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> _End of the day_, Hillier looks good, CF looks good, (hopefully) guys like HoM get a bit of loot and plugs (like me) say "Cool, the Boss is cool".




I don't particularly care about me, honestly I'm fighting to recoup and get back with my mates, but I do care about guys like Piper and a Sgt I know guys who have no compensation nothing but a thanks for coming out here's your wound strip now you're someone else is problem till we can get work out of you again. And trust even though I and others have been treated very well what I just said is very much how it feels.

I think the system needs to be changed, I think VAC needs to change (but then again it's needed to changed for 20 years now) I really hope that as crappy as this situation came to the forefront it's a situation that needs addressing in an immediate way.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2006)

Well said Edward!!

Finally the voice of reason instead of the voice of reaction.

My personal viewpoint is:

This is a Veteran's Affairs area.

SISIP does not re-imburse for lost wages because...allowances and benefits are NOT lost wages;

Theatre hazard/risk/hardship benefits granted to us by the Treasury Board and allowances for special duty areas are just that...payable because you ARE IN a special duty area.

VAC is not going to give you a life-long pension for an injury that will not affect you life-long.

However, I believe it falls squarely on the shoulders of VAC (a HUGE shortfall shall we call it in this case) to ensure that soldiers injured whether short-term, long-term, physiclly, mentally or a combo of any such, in any area of service to their country, whether on a so-called "Peacekeeping tour" or in an "Armed Conflict" (No...officially we are not at "war" in Afghanistan  : immediately receive:

-immediate lump compensation for the injury inflicted (no matter if deemed by them to be permanent or not);
-immediate compensation and support to the NOK/family to ensure that their direct on-site support of their loved one in whatever hospital/rehab facility is immediately possible;
-to immediately liaise with our injured to ensure prompt claims processing and physical/mental care is immediately provided and carried out on a life-long basis if necessary; 
-to deem themselves responsible to follow-up with ALL individual claimants (whether VAC has deemed their injuries permanent or not) on (at minimum) an annual basis to update their files with real-time claimants needs/changes to situation vice having the members be required to go back and fight with VAC again and again as their situation/health changes as is currently the case; and to
-cut the current system of red-tape/stalling/"everyone will need to appeal at least once" that seems to be the experience of the vast majority of personnel who've had the pleasure of dealing with them. Benefit of the doubt should ALWAYS go to the injured soldier, because when it doesn't, it seems that it the ones who really need VACs services and care (either short-term or long) who end up fighting the system. 

Soldiers First!!


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Oct 2006)

Maybe a simple solution would be say "Right.  You are going to A'stan for x months.  That equals y dollars.  You have a two options:
(A) take 1/x amount of y every month
(b) take all of x upon repatriation"
If a member gets wounded on day one or on the last day, they get paid the HARDSHIP and IN THEATRE bonuses (boni?) irrespective if they are "over there" or not.  It's a lump sum, payable either all at once at repatriation or in slices, once a month.

Is this too simple?


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2006)

Thats basicaly what happens now if your deployed it comes in monthly installments to a electronic account (unless you want it to go somewhere else) where at the end of tour your are paid out a lump sum of everything you have not taken out of your account. Problem is because it's monthly the second you leave it all stops after the 25 day grace ( so you can take HLTA).


----------



## RHFC_piper (6 Oct 2006)

Armyvern said:
			
		

> Theatre hazard/risk/hardship benefits granted to us by the Treasury Board and allowances for special duty areas are just that...payable because you ARE IN a special duty area.



I'm sure, had those of us who were wounded knew, before we left KAF for Germany, that upon leaving that A; these benifits were going to cease and B; we have a choice about where we would like to spend our recovery time, we might have sellected KAF as our recovery location.
Seems Glib, I know.  But if I had it to do again, and the option were there, I would have just stayed in that special duty area. (for more than just monetary reasons)

Basically, as shallow and cold as it sounds, heres what I know; I'm covered in wounds that I couldn't prevent, I'm away from the place I want be, I'm going to be in pain for a long while, and as well taken care of, medically, I am, I am now going to get $10,000 less than I would have made haden't I gotten my self all shot full of holes by someone elses doing. I call this the 'Salt in wounds' Syndrome... aka. 'KickedWhenDownitis'..

But I digress... its not about the money.. its the 'see ya later, sucker." feeling... maybe its just the PTSD talking.


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2006)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I'm sure, had those of us who were wounded knew, before we left KAF for Germany, that upon leaving that A; these benifits were going to cease and B; we have a choice about where we would like to spend our recovery time, we might have sellected KAF as our recovery location.
> Seems Glib, I know.  But if I had it to do again, and the option were there, I would have just stayed in that special duty area. (for more than just monetary reasons)
> 
> Basically, as shallow and cold as it sounds, heres what I know; I'm covered in wounds that I couldn't prevent, I'm away from the place I want be, I'm going to be in pain for a long while, and as well taken care of, medically, I am, I am now going to get $10,000 less than I would have made haden't I gotten my self all shot full of holes by someone elses doing. I call this the 'Salt in wounds' Syndrome... aka. 'KickedWhenDownitis'..
> ...



I understand your situation. But, it is not a secret that benefits are payable only when in-theatre, and that when you leave theatre...these cease. Just like your seperation expense benefits cease when you are on HLTA and reunited with your NOK...because you are no longer seperated and are thus not entitled. When not in the field...one is not entitled to field pay. When not on TD one is not entitled to TD benefits. Etc.

The fight for rights and benefits/care for the injured such as yourself who have come out of theatre rests squarely with Veteran's Affairs, who really need to pony up and start looking after you guys fully, promptly and appropriately. I'm not saying your not entitled to something....I'm saying that it falls under the realm of DVA and they need to fix their system and start removing the salt from the wounds.


----------



## HItorMiss (6 Oct 2006)

Vern don't get me started on Field pay, that's a huge fight in it own, explain to me how a sailor get sea pay when his ship in dry dock at Stand but because he is posted to a ship he gets sea pay, that argument about fiield pay benefits is already in the process of being changed.

However your argument in for this being an issue of VAC I'm not so sure that's it's not a whole CF and it's compatriots issue. I think the CF, VAC SISIP and what ever else dog and dockey group want to add to issues problems.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2006)

> The fight for rights and benefits/care for the injured such as yourself who have come out of theatre rests squarely with Veteran's Affairs, who really need to pony up and start looking after you guys fully, promptly and appropriately. I'm not saying your not entitled to something....I'm saying that it falls under the realm of DVA and they need to fix their system and start removing the salt from the wounds.



The money has already been budgeted for the Troops, what harm is it to continue giving to them.  They are in no way out of danger, as the risk now involves a myriad of factors due to the injury.

The danger pay is just that, working under danger.  Now they have encountered the hazard, been affected by, so we should therefore stop??

Makes no sense to me.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The money has already been budgeted for the Troops, what harm is it to continue giving to them.  They are in no way out of danger, as the risk now involves a myriad of factors due to the injury.
> 
> The danger pay is just that, working under danger.  Now they have encountered the hazard, been affected by, so we should therefore stop??
> 
> ...



I agree with you Tess and HorM...but the key word here is, as you say above, 





> due to the injury


 and that's when VAC should be immediately kicking in with appropriate injury allowances/benefits and lump sum payments in respect to earnings/benefits/allowances lost due to the injury. I agree it should happen, we just disagree from whom the 'compensation' should come.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2006)

I see, that is bang on.  I was too quick to pull the post trigger.

The posts in this thread have been phenomenal.  The CDS has changed things, but this is only rewarding bad behaviour of Veteran Affairs.

That is the damaged area that must be fixed, and trust me I have experienced many a broken situation with them.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (6 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The CDS has changed things, but this is only rewarding bad behaviour of Veteran Affairs.
> 
> That is the damaged area that must be fixed, and trust me I have experienced many a broken situation with them.



And VAC needs to be fixed. Injured soldiers are supposed to be cared for and compensated by them.

And yes, the allowances/benefits for each position in-theatre are already budgeted for but this does not make the paying of them to an injured soldier who has been removed from theatre an 'already covered' or 'paid for' area. The allowances are paid out to individuals based on their POSITION in-theatre. For those that are injured and removed, how do we go about paying the back-up soldier who deploys from Canada and replaces them in that position their allowances if those allotted allowances are being paid to the injured? 

Simple...the injured should be covered by Veteran's Affairs...that is their mandated area and it's high time it happened.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2006)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> ........I don't see this as a way of solving a VAC problem, it's a loss of income problem.





			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Basically, as shallow and cold as it sounds, heres what I know; I'm covered in wounds that I couldn't prevent, I'm away from the place I want be, I'm going to be in pain for a long while, and as well taken care of, medically, I am, I am now going to get $10,000 less than I would have made haden't I gotten my self all shot full of holes by someone elses doing. I call this the 'Salt in wounds' Syndrome... aka. 'KickedWhenDownitis'..
> 
> But I digress... its not about the money.. its the 'see ya later, sucker." feeling... maybe its just the PTSD talking.



It seems to me that with you it is all about the money.  I do not know any job where if you were injured you'd be covered 100% for loss of Income.  You would receive an amount of money that would allow you to maintain a reasonable lifestyle, not any more.  The Government is very 'Cheap' when it comes to 'paying out' its' employees (unlike its Mandarins).  The rules for all Military Allowances are strictly layed out.  Once a Service Member becomes injured it is now time for SISIP and DVA to do their thing.  Their Review Process is going to have to be revamped and brought up to standard to take care of our casualties.  The CF fights the war, SISIP insures the Service Members, and DVA takes care of the Veterans of those wars during and afterwards.

This whole business has focused everyone on DND and the CF, not the real culprits; the DVA and SISIP.


----------



## cplcaldwell (6 Oct 2006)

Reproduced from the *Globe and Mail* at this link 

under the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act , RSC _cripes, I'm getting tired of typing that..._


_My emphasis and saucy commentary added_


> *Wounded soldiers to get more pay, O'Connor says*
> Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Friday he has ordered top staff to look at providing better pay to wounded soldiers.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2006)

Armyvern said:
			
		

> And yes, the allowances/benefits for each position in-theatre are already budgeted for but this does not make the paying of them to an injured soldier who has been removed from theatre an 'already covered' or 'paid for' area. The allowances are paid out to individuals based on their POSITION in-theatre. For those that are injured and removed, how do we go about paying the back-up soldier who deploys from Canada and replaces them in that position their allowances if those allotted allowances are being paid to the injured?



Very good points, that should clarify any questions about "well the funds have already been allocated".  If they have been 'allocated', they have been 'allocated' for one individual, not two, so the injured party leaving the danger area gives up that 'alloted Danger Pay' to his replacement.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Very good points, that should clarify any questions about "well the funds have already been allocated".  If they have been 'allocated', they have been 'allocated' for one individual, not two, so the injured party leaving the danger area gives up that 'alloted Danger Pay' to his replacement.



That is a very good point by Vern, that I overlooked.  The money has been budgeted by DND, for a slot, not a person.

Again, we must no focus our attenion on the DVA, and SISIP.

dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (6 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Very good points, that should clarify any questions about "well the funds have already been allocated".



Are they not re-allocated to the replacement pers?

Edit: Oh, yeah, perhaps if I'd read that post properly...


----------



## warrickdll (6 Oct 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Maybe a simple solution would be say "Right.  You are going to A'stan for x months.  That equals y dollars.  You have a two options:
> (A) take 1/x amount of y every month
> (b) take all of x upon repatriation"
> If a member gets wounded on day one or on the last day, they get paid the HARDSHIP and IN THEATRE bonuses (boni?) irrespective if they are "over there" or not.  It's a lump sum, payable either all at once at repatriation or in slices, once a month.
> ...



Discussing (rehashing) specifically the issue of tour bonuses, and not what occurs in the years following being wounded, there are a few points:

	- Tour length is not consistent. A soldier who is wounded on day one of a 9 month tour should not receive more money than a soldier wounded on day one of a 6 month tour, or a 3 month tour. In Theatre bonuses are for In Theatre time, not expected In Theatre time.

	- Where the wounded convalesce is not consistent. A soldier who is wounded and is recovering at home should not receive the same pay as someone still in a foreign hospital, or still in range of enemy rockets. This is where sticking with Overseas bonuses and In Theatre bonuses works for those who are still Overseas and still In Theatre.

	- The cause of the medical conditions is not consistent. An medically evacuated soldier shot by the enemy should not be paid more than A soldier who is injured overseas because their vehicle ran off the road or a soldier who was shot from an ND - they are all in pain as a result of what occurred while on operations. The wound stripe (or whatever may be in the future) is all that is required to distinguish the wounded from the injured.


In short: Pay should be equitable. A soldier convalescing in Canada should not be paid the same as a soldier convalescing in Afghanistan. And, a soldier convalescing in Afghanistan should not be paid more than a soldier in the field in Afghanistan.


There are 2 solutions (possibly combined) that may be more acceptable:

	1. Regardless of how much tour time is left; pay out the bonuses for 1 month to those medically evacuated (make it SOP)

	2. Have a Convalescent Allowance for those medically evacuated to bridge from while still in the CF until released and VAC takes over (or until recovered and returned to duty).


I'd like to stress the difference between pay and bonuses (others have mentioned it already) - expecting to keep receiving bonuses is probably not standard (unless you are a political or CEO hack who is Entitled to their Entitlements  ).


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Oct 2006)

As is becoming apparent, the media has misdirected its hyperbole and (IMHO) we've seen a knee-jerk reaction as a result.  The more recent posts here are putting the problem in the right context - this is a DVA issue and not one that belongs with the operational CF.

Simply extending operational allowances opens a huge can of worms, as it invites inequality between injured soldiers.  Hardship and Risk Allowances vary from mission to mission (indeed, they can vary between individual locations on a mission) and are under constant review.

For example, a soldier wounded at, say, an FOB, might well be getting a higher benefit than a soldier wounded in an IED attack in Kabul - even after arrival in Canada.  They're both wounded, both living under the same conditions back home, yet one soldier receives more money simply because of where he was physically in theatre.  What happens if the HA and RA drop?  Do benefits back home drop?  Worse, what about a soldier wounded in Bosnia (there are still plenty of mines strewn about) in 2006, where the benefits are comparatively miniscule?  Do we bump his allowances up to Afghanistan level?   Lots of questions, few answers.

Again, I am firmly of the opinion that (1) these are benefits for being _in theatre_, are specifically tailored to operational circumstances and that they should be discontinued on redeployment - for whatever reason; (2)  there are still issues with how DVA deals with injured soldiers and that this is where we should direct our efforts; and (3) soldiers should never view in-theatre allowances and benefits as an "entitlement" or as "income".  We get paid for doing our jobs.  The bonuses are just that.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> 2. Have a Convalescent Allowance for those medically evacuated to bridge from while still in the CF until released and VAC takes over (or until recovered and returned to duty).



Just to clarify something.  You do not have to be 'Released' to collect a pension from VAC.  You can still get a pension from VAC and continue to serve, depending on the extent of your injuries.  The example being the many who are serving with knee injuries and currently receiving VAC pensions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2006)

Some more on the reconsideration, shared under fair dealings provision....

Military to consider ways to help soldiers who lose danger pay  
Andrew Mayeda, CanWest News Service, 6 Oct 06
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=2646eeb7-6806-4399-b5b0-0030891f65f1&k=22007

Under pressure from reports of wounded Canadian soldiers who stopped receiving danger pay, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor said Friday he is looking at ways to ensure injured soldiers don’t suffer a drop in income when they return home.

O’Connor said military and defence-department staff are “moving quickly” to find a solution.

“We have to make sure that our wounded soldiers are looked after completely while they’re in the service and if some of them leave the service, to look after them after their service. But we’ve got to make sure they’re treated fairly,” he said.

The Ottawa Citizen reported this week that, under Department of National Defence policy, even injured soldiers lose their “high-risk allowance” when they leave a war zone such as Afghanistan.

Other news organizations then followed with portraits of soldiers who face a pay cut on top of a months of recovery.

The revelations prompted sharp criticism from opposition MPs, who blasted the government for its lack of compassion.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague has been one of the most vocal critics, calling the policy a “very shabby way to treat our soldiers.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday he understands the "source of concern" about the matter.

"Obviously, given the kind of risks our soldiers are facing, the kind of leadership they’re taking on in Afghanistan, (and) the pride we feel in them, we want to make sure that we have a full range of programs to support them," he said at a news conference in Calgary.

"But we want to make sure that whatever series of pay or compensation arrangements we have are fair to everyone involved in the exercise."

Soldiers serving in Afghanistan receive a tax-free allowance of $2,111 a month on top of a salary of $4,069 to $5,190. But once they return to Canada, even if wounded, their danger pay ends.

O’Connor said the government plans to retain the general policy on danger pay, which was implemented by the Liberals in the 1990s. 

But he said staff are looking at measures to fix the “anomaly” of injured soldiers seeing their compensation drop. “From a high risk point of view it’s fair because if you’re in high risk you get this allowance and if you’re out of high risk you don’t,” he said. “But it doesn’t seem to be fair from the point of view that if you’re wounded before your tour is up that somehow you lose some of your benefits.  So we’re looking at that.”

O’Connor said it’s possible soldiers could receive another form of compensation in lieu of danger pay. He couldn’t say how much such a measure would cost, nor whether it would be retroactive.

Earlier in the day, Canada’s top soldier also vowed to find a remedy. “We’re going to fix it and we’re going to fix it quickly. I’ve got a bunch of very smart, big-brained people and we’re going to figure out how to look after those soldiers,” Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier told a television network.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Oct 2006)

> O’Connor said the government plans to retain the general policy on danger pay, which was implemented by the Liberals in the 1990s.
> 
> But he said staff are looking at measures to fix the “anomaly” of injured soldiers seeing their compensation drop. “From a high risk point of view it’s fair because if you’re in high risk you get this allowance and if you’re out of high risk you don’t,” he said. “But it doesn’t seem to be fair from the point of view that if you’re wounded before your tour is up that somehow you lose some of your benefits.  So we’re looking at that.”
> 
> ...



Could this be the DVA fix we were bantering about today?

Hmmm, maybe those two are members of this site!

Oi Armyvern, are you sure that you are not Hillier's nom de plume??  Let's head over to the the photo contest thread and see some proof...

dileas

tess


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2006)

I'm kinda impressed by the speed between first breaking story and resolution - this can happen when the military is a priority.

Good luck all who need more help than you're getting!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (7 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> 3rd Horsemen you didn't read my initial post did you, If the wound will not cause permanent disability you do not get anything. If you need to get your wounds pack for 3 months but those wounds are essentially cosmetic you will get evaced but guess what, you don't get a VAC pension in fact you get squat. See where the argument lies, many wounded are removed from theater because their wounds require more care then the Role 3 can provide but they do not incur long term disability to the soldier so essential as was pointed out they are cut off.



Actually their is a cosmetic DVA pension for disfigurement.
Also the VAC pension is "a gift of Canada for pain and suffering" it can be given for pain and suffering to the recovering and then reduced later as the patient regains capability. This was the angle I was talking about earlier.

Also VAC does need to be at the hospital bed on arrival, it is their job as was the activity of DVA in WW1 WW2 and Korea. It is only of late that DVA has figured it could sit back and wait for the troops to call them. This is changing it has been argued at the Government level and at DVA and appears to be being resolved. This resolution combined with the expedited hearing gets the compensation rolling within 45 days at the latest.


----------



## Gunner (7 Oct 2006)

> It is only of late that DVA has figured it could sit back and wait for the troops to call them. This is changing it has been argued at the Government level and at DVA and appears to be being resolved. This resolution combined with the expedited hearing gets the compensation rolling within 45 days at the latest.



I recant my comments on DVA, I hear through the grapevine they are not as proactive as they should be.  This is very unfortunate as considerable effort was expended by the CF/DND to integrate them into our overall process.  Watch and shoot (that means wait and see, not wait and shoot the DVA fellow  )


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Oct 2006)

This struck me as being a wedge issue by the Liberals. They can pretend support for the troops at the sametime that they attempt to create a wedge between the government and the military. Once a wounded soldier is no longer in theater the special pays should stop. The government has every responsibility for the care of its wounded soldiers until they can be returned to duty or be given a medical retirement/disability pension.


----------



## Armymedic (7 Oct 2006)

Sorry to jump in late.

I think:

the current regulations ref overseas allowances are correct,
this is a political issue,
troops going over are not blind (if they were briefed properly) to what would happen to their allowances if they are returned to Canada early.
To change the current policy would be a mistake and a knee jerk reaction to what is happening in the media.
If a policy needs to be changed, it is the injury insurance we receive or should receive.


----------



## COBRA-6 (7 Oct 2006)

+1 SMMT

You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just to clarify something.  You do not have to be 'Released' to collect a pension from VAC.  You can still get a pension from VAC and continue to serve, depending on the extent of your injuries.  The example being the many who are serving with knee injuries and currently receiving VAC pensions.



Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus? 

As to the speed of the decision regarding remuneration, simple. The government is not going to give the opposition the opportunity to hurt them politically for such piddling amounts.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (7 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?



Gap,

   It was a pre 99 thing, only for those wounded or injured in Special Duty Areas and was a benifit for that service. After 99 they opened it up to everyone which IMHO was a huge mistake. Too many benifits for the wounded in battle were given to all and that just watered down the importance of it. As to why they did it pre 99, it was for pain and suffering. How they got it through that all should get it is beyond me. It was wrong but that is the way it is now.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?
> 
> As to the speed of the decision regarding remuneration, simple. The government is not going to give the opposition the opportunity to hurt them politically for such piddling amounts.



??,

Now we are entering some sort of moral debate...Why not strip any recognition what so ever too.  Why the purple heart, or wounded stripe. In fact, take away their medal too, they did not serve the complete tour.  Just because they had half their head blown off, and parts of their body in their lap means jack.  They may be deaf, Blind and in pain, not to mention the mental anguish, but if they can still work eff giving them any type of compensation.  Yep I like your analogy.

I am with you GAP....

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> ??,
> 
> Now we are entering some sort of moral debate...Why not strip any recognition what so ever too.  Why the purple heart, or wounded stripe. In fact, take away their medal too, they did not serve the complete tour.  Just because they had half their head blown off, and parts of their body in their lap means jack.  They may be deaf, Blind and in pain, not to mention the mental anguish, but if they can still work eff giving them any type of compensation.  Yep I like your analogy.
> 
> ...



Hmmm....I'm missing something here...did I miss a page or something? I am not sure what you are refering to...


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?



Page 8,

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2006)

My question revolved around the fact that that you could collect a pension while still serving was surprising to me. I wanted to know how that happened, and it was explained in the next post.



> Gap,
> 
> It was a pre 99 thing, only for those wounded or injured in Special Duty Areas and was a benifit for that service. After 99 they opened it up to everyone which IMHO was a huge mistake. Too many benifits for the wounded in battle were given to all and that just watered down the importance of it. As to why they did it pre 99, it was for pain and suffering. How they got it through that all should get it is beyond me. It was wrong but that is the way it is now.



Asked and answered...moral judgements? no, curiosity.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> My question revolved around the fact that that you could collect a pension while still serving was surprising to me. I wanted to know how that happened, and it was explained in the next post.
> 
> Asked and answered...moral judgements? no, curiosity.



I am going to sound crass, but c'mon.  What is it that surprised you?  Maybe I am out of line, would you please properly elaborate your curiosity.  As a statement like this;



> if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pensionI can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?



Is not a question waiting for an answer, it is a statement of opinion.

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2006)

You are welcome to think what you like, but I was simply surprised. I had never heard about that before, because as I stated, I thought that if you were able to fulfill your duties, you would not be eligible for a pension.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Oct 2006)

Thank you for allowing my thoughts,

And although I offer you the same liberty, I question it.

Do you not feel that the soldier is owed any sort of compensation?  Even if he were to carry on with his tasks.

Just answer me that.

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Thank you for allowing my thoughts,
> 
> And although I offer you the same liberty, I question it.
> 
> ...



At no point did I ever state that.

I read something I did not know about, I asked "how could that be?" and was given an answer. Then you waded in after misinterpreting my question, which the answer given to me should have given you a hint because it answered my question totally. Remember I never served in the CF, so there are huge areas I know little or nothing about. 

Actually I have no problem with the existing, suggested and future compensation packages...they've earned them.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?




Then I guess I misinterpretted what you said, and "waded" in.

Mea Culpa, and accept my apology.

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2006)

None required...what impressed me was that while you were obviously upset (which I couldn't understand why) you allowed me to clearify what I meant and did not mean. All too often I see threads disintegrate becasue people are not willing to listen to the other guy. Thanks


----------



## Spring_bok (7 Oct 2006)

Gap asked a legitimate question and he deserves an answer instead of all this drama.  Soldiers with injuries that resulted in some disability but were still capable of serving were assessed and given either a lump sum or a monthly pension for the determined amount of disability.  This was anything from a knee injury or hearing loss to long term results of PTSD. This changed with the new veterans charter in April 2005 so that instead of a pension soldiers were to receive up to $250,000 depending on extent of disability.  Why the change?  I don't know but it could be that it was costing too much money.  There are soldiers serving today receiving as much as 40% of their income and are still deployable.  Is it right? Who knows?  I hope that this is the answer you were looking for GAP.  If anyone wants to wade in with a whole lot of drama, don't bother because I have no more to say on this issue


----------



## GAP (8 Oct 2006)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> I hope that this is the answer you were looking for GAP.



Both you and 3rd Horseman cleared up the question for me....thanks


----------



## Sub_Guy (8 Oct 2006)

Well it seems that the Toronto Star has taken most of the interesting points brought up on this site and published them.....

http://veritas.mil.ca/showfile.asp?Lang=E&URL=/Clips/National/061008/f01256DN.htm   Link through the din


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160259012546&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

As news comes of the 40th Canadian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan, other military personnel are in a cyber-fight over whether front-line troops should lose their danger pay if they're wounded badly enough to be sent home.

The blogging debate on the http://www.army.ca website follows last week's story of wounded troops forfeiting more than $2,000 a month in risk and hardship allowances once they're no longer "in theatre."

Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, has vowed to find other ways to top up their pay.

Contributors to the blog include both combat and non-combat troops. Many think the existing policy is fine. 

"Of course there is a precedent," writes one. "Considering how much the ... Senate gets paid for contributing nothing to the governance of Canada, it's equally logical for the troops not in danger to get danger pay."

Both Hillier and Liberal MP Dan McTeague come under fire. McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East), whose cousin was hurt in Afghanistan last month, calls the pay policy "deplorable."

"Does the fact that the honourable member's own cousin was wounded mean that he is only now learning of this policy?" asks one blogger.

Another adds: "An injured soldier will probably benefit more from his/her injuries via Veterans' Affairs pensions than if they had received the danger pay ... I hate politicians ..."

A third, signing off with a saluting "smiley face," writes of Hillier: "I was watching Canada AM ... the Boss was awesome. He didn't even wait to hear the end of the question before he made it clear that he was getting it sorted out ... I really hope he gets into politics when he finishes his military career."

Someone else retorts: "He is already playing politics. He knows full well what danger pay is and how it is administered. He could have had something done a long time ago ..."

A soldier argues that if his wound doesn't leave a permanent disability, "I am not going to collect a thing ... I get a shiny wound strip (on my uniform) and that's it." 

This prompts a reply: "If you think I want money just 'cause I got wounded ... you can go F yourself. I got hurt saving lives."

Other comments include:

"Danger pay is just that ... It should end on departure from the danger."

"It seems as though the Liberals are trying to imply that the soldiers won't be looked after by the government, which is untrue. This is a case of someone trying to use the wrong tool to fix something."

"Visiting my buddy in Winnipeg who had his legs blown off ... he mentioned how fast he got all his payments." 

"It trivializes why the bonuses are in place ... for being deployed to a s***hole and risking your neck. They're called bonuses for a reason and people regarding them as lost income ... are missing the point."


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> Gap asked a legitimate question and he deserves an answer instead of all this drama.  Soldiers with injuries that resulted in some disability but were still capable of serving were assessed and given either a lump sum or a monthly pension for the determined amount of disability.  This was anything from a knee injury or hearing loss to long term results of PTSD. This changed with the new veterans charter in April 2005 so that instead of a pension soldiers were to receive up to $250,000 depending on extent of disability.  Why the change?  I don't know but it could be that it was costing too much money.  There are soldiers serving today receiving as much as 40% of their income and are still deployable.  Is it right? Who knows?  I hope that this is the answer you were looking for GAP.  If anyone wants to wade in with a whole lot of drama, don't bother because I have no more to say on this issue



Thanks for clarifying that Spring_bok sometimes I personally read things the wrong way and "Wade in with Drama".  Maybe I have to realise that the internet is hard to convey things, and that I must look at it without personalizing questions.

I guess when I being one of those soldiers with disabilities that was able to carry on, with difficulties and a pension, I look at it as more of a critical statement as opposed to a legitimate question.

I apologised and we carried on.  However I am glad the drama police arrived to clarify things.  I will PM you the next time I get personal so you can nip me in the bud.

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

However, I will say this.  

Put yourself in my shoes and read this statement/question;



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?



Basically it goes against everything I believe in.  Once again, veiled behind a question, a statement is made.  He can not understand if a person is hurt, and still employable, then why is he collecting more money than the next fella.

How many guys will look at that statement and say, frig that, I won't report my pain I will be labled weak.

We are now reducing this to a monetary question, although in the appropriate thread.  And by doing this we are perpetuating the travesty that has been going on a long time, and scaring troops away from the necessary treatment, and compensation, they deserve.

Wouldn't you agree?

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> "apply, Hillier said, to soldiers who've suffered both combat and non-combat injuries."
> 
> 
> Now this worries me slightly, I'm not against compensation I am however worried that by including non combat injuries YOU will get the occasional slug who hurts himself to get out f tour but keeps his money.Non combats injuries should be compensated in someway and maybe as we all discussed earlier the whole thing should be lump sum based on injury and how it happened.



I am inclined to believe that the statement was made to include non-combat injuries suffered in theatre, such as vehicle accidents, electrocutions (remember Engrs in Bosnia), accidents on the flight line, etc.  I don't think it was to include all non-combat injuries that may have occured in Canada.


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

What about injuries incurred during training,

Knees, backs other types.  Para jumps, vehicle accidents, weapons accidents...the list goes on...

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (8 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What about injuries incurred during training,
> 
> Knees, backs other types.  Para jumps, vehicle accidents, weapons accidents...the list goes on...
> 
> ...



How are they dealt with now?


----------



## Pearson (8 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What about injuries incurred during training,
> 
> Knees, backs other types.  Para jumps, vehicle accidents, weapons accidents...the list goes on...
> 
> ...


My pension goes back to 1994 when I was released, at the time $176.00 now matured into $225.00. Knees.
May I suggest a split, as many of the last posts have nothing to do with the thread title.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What about injuries incurred during training,
> 
> Knees, backs other types.  Para jumps, vehicle accidents, weapons accidents...the list goes on...
> 
> ...



Actually tess, for most of those that I know of, it has been paid by SISIP or even pensioned by DVA.  My Cpl was making $750 a month, Tax Free, on a DVA pension for his knees.  Why should DND now up his allowances to cover that also?  Heck, he was making more than me.  Should I now have gone out and screw up my knees so that our pays, allowances, and pensions more equally matched our ranks?


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

Mine was more of a question, or rather a rhetorical one to Hitormiss' statement.

The moment we start to point fingers of who is more deserving, we start to revert back to the medevil days, that complaining is for the weak and those trying to screw the system.

While in the service, if you are injured, then you are handled either by SISSIP, or the DVA, period.

Does not matter where, when, or how.  What we do have to do, is to repair both of those organizations so that they start to perform as they should.  This will hopefully try to filter out the liars, and provide the help needed by the injured, in a TIMELY manner.

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (8 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Mine was more of a question, or rather a rhetorical one to Hitormiss' statement.
> 
> The moment we start to point fingers of who is more deserving, we start to revert back to the medevil days, that complaining is for the weak and those trying to screw the system.
> 
> ...



In refering to the name of the thread, then any changes that come about should be logically handled through these two organizations, depending on which one applies?


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

> SISSIP, or the DVA, period



These two here?

dileas

tess


----------



## GAP (8 Oct 2006)

yes. While it says that in this thread, under the media reports it kinda leaves the impression it will be simply be a continuation of pay/benefits.


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

Well then People must look closely at the article written in the Star;

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160171411447&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



> Hillier and O'Connor said the policy of discontinuing danger pay for wounded soldiers would remain, but they would get their extra compensation some other way.



dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2006)

> Hillier and O'Connor said the policy of discontinuing danger pay for wounded soldiers would remain, but they would get their extra compensation some other way.



That doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to 'create' a whole new allowance.  It may mean that they are going to start getting on the cases of DVA and SISIP to streamline their procedures and get their acts together.  It is these two organizations that are the target of all of our woes and discussion now.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Well then People must look closely at the article written in the Star;
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160171411447&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
> 
> ...



Wow that's amazing! Good on O'Conner and Hillier...I hope they don't delay this thing so that it becomes another frustration for those who apply for it. I think the Liberals are still a bunch of hippocrites for yelling about this when they themselves never moved to do anything about it under their watch. But hey it's working out for the troops so it's all good!! ;D


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

Bingo,

They will possibly be cracking down on those two Groups.

I can almost guarantee that there will be a sit down between the two ministers (Defence and Vetaran's) to discuss the organization that is responsible.

Time for the DVA to step up for the modern Veteran.

dileas

tess


----------



## Gunner (8 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to 'create' a whole new allowance.  It may mean that they are going to start getting on the cases of DVA and SISIP to streamline their procedures and get their acts together.  It is these two organizations that are the target of all of our woes and discussion now.



George, I wouldn't lump DVA and SISIP in the same category.  SISIP, from what I have heard, is very good about providing life insurance payment to the beneficiaries and providing lump sum payment for loss of limbs.  DVA is another matter.  Question - Does SISIP have another role to play for wounded soldiers?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> George, I wouldn't lump DVA and SISIP in the same category.  SISIP, from what I have heard, is very good about providing life insurance payment to the beneficiaries and providing lump sum payment for loss of limbs.  DVA is another matter.  Question - Does SISIP have another role to play for wounded soldiers?



Yes SISIP has another role to play for wounded soldiers.  There is also 'Manpower', or whatever they call themselves these days, that can be tapped into.  If a soldier is injured and is fated to leave the CF, there are programs that are available through SISIP and Manpower for job training and the like.  In many instances, what we are discussing in this Topic is all due to pure ignorance of what is available to the injured soldier, insurance wise, pay wise, programs available, etc.  A Journalist has taken a sound bite and blown the whole situation up and many misconceptions are now floating around that the wounded have nothing.  That is not true.  There are programs, allowances, pensions and the like available.  There are organizations that deal with these matters; some better than others, and that is where the real focus should be centered.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2006)

Just another point on pensions, that I had mentioned before, and came back with this post in another thread:



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Just saw O'Connor and Kenney on CTV Question Period.  O'Connor about the best I've seen him--pointing out his efforts in Slovenia to get NATO members (i.e. Germany, Italy, France and Spain) to get rid of caveats-- and Craig Oliver not too awful.  Kenney made a point--which the government should have been doing months ago--of emphasizing that ISAF is a UN Security Council mandated operation.  He's sharp; no wonder the PM gives him such exposure.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



As this is a UN mandated operation, there are UN Pensions given to those injured on UN operations.  I remember having to fill out the forms in Bosnia.  Are these forms not being filled out for injuries occuring on these Ops?


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

I found out a decade afterwards George, regarding the UN pension.

With some investigating, I also found this link;

http://www.un.org/staff/panelofcounsel/appeals.htm#claims

dileas

tess


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Oct 2006)

Here is the CANFORGEN to change the Pension Act so that CF members can receive a VAC pension while still serving. The catch is that if you are claiming i.e. for an old injury, VAC invariably will say it did not bother you before, so why now?  I feel that VAC works on reverse onus, they feel you are guilty of defrauding the government until you can prove you are innocent (reversal of common law, where you are innocent until proven guilty). The likely reason this legislation was conceived was to replace VAC's client base that was literally dieing off - WW1, was gone, WW2 and Korea was going fast. VAC had to have a reason to keep that organization going. Someone should start a thread so we can see how claims are being handled now- the good and the bad. I do hear though, that in my location, the severely wounded are getting excellent service from VAC. It is not the VAC employees, it is the system that stinks.

UNCLASSIFIED
CANFORGEN 135/00 ADMHRMIL 079 301400Z NOV 00 
REF: CANFORGEN 092/99 O21500Z NOV 99 ADM (HR-MIL) 
1.	ON 20 OCT 00, BILL C-41, AN ACT TO AMEND PENSION ACT, RECEIVED ROYAL ASSENT. THE AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE EFFECTIVE 27 OCT 00, ENSURE IMPROVED BENEFITS TO MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN FORCES (CF) WHO ARE INJURED IN THE LINE OF DUTY IN NON SPECIAL DUTY AREAS (SDA) 
2.	CF MEMBERS INJURED IN THE LINE OF DUTY IN A NON SDA MAY NOW COLLECT A DISABILITY PENSION FOR SERVICE-RELATED DISABILITIES WHILE THEY ARE STILL SERVING. PRIOR TO THIS LEGISLATION, THEY COULD BE AWARDED ENTITLEMENT TO A DISABILITY PENSION WHILE STILL SERVING, BUT COULD NOT HAVE THEIR DISABILITY ASSESSED AND RECEIVE PENSION PAYMENTS PRIOR TO THEIR RELEASE FROM SERVICE. PREVIOUSLY, SERVING CF MEMBERS COULD ONLY RECEIVE A VAC DISABILITY PENSION FOR A SERVICE-RELATED DISABILITY IF THAT DISABILITY AROSE OUT OF OR WAS DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH SERVICE IN A SDA 
3.	IN ADDITION, CHANGES WILL BE MADE IN THE FUTURE TO THE VETERANS HEALTH CARE REGULATIONS. THESE CHANGES WILL GIVE MEMBERS ENTITLED TO A VAC DISABILITY PENSION FOR A SERVICE-RELATED INJURED INCURRED IN A NON-SDA, ACCESS TO THE VETERANS INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM FOR THEIR PENSIONED CONDITIONS AND BASED ON AN ASSESSED HEALTH NEED. THIS ENSURES EQUITY OF ACCESS TO SERVICES AND BENEFITS TO ALL CF MEMBERS INJURED IN THE LINE OF DUTY 
4.	MEMBERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO IMMEDIATELY APPLY SHOULD THEY HAVE A SERVICE RELATED DISABILITY. APPLICATION IS TO BE MADE THROUGH LOCAL VAC DISTRICT OFFICES OR THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION. STILL SERVING MEMBERS WHO ARE ALREADY ENTITLED TO A VAC DISABILITY PENSION UPON DISCHARGE FROM THE SERVICE WILL BEGIN RECEIVING THEIR PENSION BASED ON THE DATE THE AMENDED LEGISLATION CAME INTO EFFECT 27 OCT 00 
5.	MEMBERS MAY OBTAIN FURTHER INFORMATION BY DIRECTLY CONTACTING THE DND/VAC CENTRE FOR THE CARE OF INJURED AND RETIRED PERSONNEL AND THEIR FAMILIES AT 613-995-0972 OR 1-800-883-6094, WEB SITE QUOTE   WWW.DND.CA/HR/THECENTRE   UNQUOTE OR VIA EMAIL QUOTE CENTRE@DND.CA UNQUOTE. MORE INFORMATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE VAC WEBSITE AT   WWW.VAC-ACC.GC.CA   UNDER   CLIENT SECTION CF ACTIVITIES   OR THROUGH THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION WEBSITE AT   WWW.LEGION.CA .  MEMBERS MAY ALSO CONTACT THE LEGION BY E-MAIL AT INFO@LEGION.CA 
6.	COMMANDERS AT ALL LEVELS ARE TO ENSURE THAT THE CONTENTS OF THIS MESSAGE ARE DISSEMINATED TO THE WIDEST EXTENT POSSIBLE


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

> It is not the VAC employees, it is the system that stinks.



Both are too blame.  I have dealt with some of the best and some of the Worst people, within VAC.

The systed is completely broken, and therefore there is a horrible check and balance on their personel.

dileas

tess


----------



## GUNNER2006 (8 Oct 2006)

After being on 5 tours and seeing many of my fellow soldiers retiring due to injuries, I think the whole system needs to be revamped. If you get more than 75% of your gross pay from a medical pension (ie number of years served)  and dva, you get nothing from sisip. Thats right nothing. You have paid into this sisip (manditory  long term disability). The policy holder is the cds.  Many of the dags i went through was in a drill hall with about 300 soldiers in line signing all the papers as fast as you can like a big rat wheel. Did they(sisip) explain all the details to each soldier on what they were covered for?  We keep hearing " you will be taken care of and the military takes care of its own."
They all know the compensation we are entiled to. Look at the dnd watch dog (ombudsmans report 26 oct 2005) to  >: dbill graham  reference this. Still the new veterans charter is the same .dva now use the 75% rule. The old sisip way. Soldiers should look into this problem as all the benifits are not what they appear. Anyone dealing with this problem with sisip and the dva?  Oh, part of your gross income also includes any funds your children get.  
Explain this one to your troops cds and mnd. This danger pay issue has opened a big can of worms on compensation of injured troops and the struggles they have to get ahead in life.  My advice to all soldiers is to ask questions about your ltd,sisip and dva so that you and your family is protected if you are injured.
I   all the troops fighting for the freedom of this counrty.to all support the troops


GUNNER 2006      

(Edited a bit to turn off yelling)


----------



## the 48th regulator (8 Oct 2006)

SISSIP  gives you nothing unless you reached total loss of function, 

And then they refer you to the DVA.
That is the magical crux of it all.  We pay into them, like an insurance policy, and they know full well that they need not pay you, as VAC will cover everything else other than loss of limb.  This company is making tons off of the payments we make on tour....

Odd isn't it?


dileas

tess


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Oct 2006)

Just like Unemployment Insurance. Who will ever collect?

Can you collect CPP Disability Benefits as a result of being WIA?


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2006)

Let's just say that Treasury Board has formula's for everthing so that you will never be able to get full payments from any Government policy.  The more you get from one policy, reduces the amount you will get from another.  SISIP has included Federal assistance in their formulas in calculating your benefits.

Even if you aren't injured, and achieve a Pension from the CF, when you come to the time that you can collect CPP, a formula is applied to average the two and give you what will appear to be slightly less that you were originally getting - no way to collect two full pensions.  But that is another story, buy still an example of how the Government will claw back money that you thought you may earned.  Fun eh?  You did start a SRRSP?


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2006)

SRRSP? Do you mean a self directed RRSP? Yes, I did, but it will not be enough ( currently low 6 figures ) to buy back all my time due to the wage measure and 7% compound interest. That is, if the Reserve Pension ever CIF.

I understand the claw back of CPP at age 65, if you have a CF Pension. You are aware of course, of Peter Stoffer's latest bill in Parliament that received first reading in the last sussion ( Bill C441 died when the election was called, and Stoffer tabled a new Bill after the election).

If we are paying into CPP why can not WIA receive CPP Disability Benefits?


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As this is a UN mandated operation, there are UN Pensions given to those injured on UN operations.


UN approval does not make a UN mission.  This is not a UN mission.  



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The money has already been budgeted for the Troops, what harm is it to continue giving to them.


There is now a replacement soldier getting that budgeted money, but that is irrelevant.  Balance sheets should not be the factor in this debate.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> O’Connor said it’s possible soldiers could receive another form of compensation in lieu of danger pay. He couldn’t say how much such a measure would cost, nor whether it would be retroactive.


This is the way to go (and retroactive would be nice).



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> a.  Should soldiers wounded due to enemy action continue to receive Hardship, Risk and Foreign Service Premium?  No, of course not, they are no longer serving in the theatre of operations and there is no entitlement.  This is not additional pay, these benefits are to compensate you for the hardship of living in an operational theatre, the increased risk associated with the deployment and the generic FSP that all government employees receive.  Its purpose is not to compensate for physical or mental suffering from a wound.


Agree.



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> b.  Should a soldier receive financial compensation for being wounded in action?  I was originally against this but I am now sitting on the fence.  Someone mentioned that if a soldier is injured on the first day in theatre, they should receive the full 6 months of benefits (above) but if they are wounded on their last day in theatre, they only get an additional day.  This doesn't make sense at all.  You either get a lump sum for being wounded or you don't.  No middle ground that would provide for a graduated scale of financial compensation (you either get it or you don't).  The graduated scales are the purview of SISIP and VAC (loss of limbs provide x dollars, etc).  Hence, if anything is given, it must be a lump sum.  1K, 5K or 10K, it doesn't matter to me as the amount is minor in the grand scheme.


I also agree with the notion of a “wounded bonus” but one even for fully recoverable injuries (if you get a wound stripe, then you get some compensation relative to the extent of your injury).



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> c.  SISIP Benefits.  If you lose parts of your body or your life, your NOK receive their money very quickly.  No issues with SISIP.
> 
> d.  VAC benefits.  There is absolutely no requirement for VAC to be waiting for a wounded soldier to get off the plane.  I've been involved on the periphery for wounded soldiers and there has been relatively few instances of VAC not going above and beyond what is required of them.  As HOM stated, if you fully recover from your wounds, you probably won't receive anything from VAC.  Why would you?


It seems reasonable that the government should demand of SISIP to fix its program to provide coverage for loss/reduction of income due to medical repatriation (SISIP is, after all, an insurance).  VAC should handle any wounded bonus, and all VAC benefit should be dated to the moment the soldier suffered injury.


----------



## GUNNER2006 (9 Oct 2006)

RIFLEMAN62,

YES YOU CAN COLLECT CPP NOW IF INJURED TO THE POINT THAT YOU CANT WORK.
AFTER MY INJURY TO MY LIMBS IN A SPECIAL DUTY AREA, IT COST ME MY CAREER.
I APPLIED TO DVA.AFTER ALL WAS SAID AND DONE,I SUFFERER DAILY FROM PAIN,LOSS OF FULL
USE AND CANT DO STUFF I USE TO DO. DVA OVER TIME GAVE ME A PENSION.WHEN I RETIRED THIS YEAR ,I APPLIED TO SISIP FOR LTD, THEY SAID YOU GET ZERO DOLLARS BECAUSE YOU GET YOUR MILITARY PENSION PLUS DVA WHICH IS 75% OF YOUR GROSS.I KNEW THIS BEFORE I APPLIED .THE REASON I APPLIED TO TO GET IN THE SYSTEM FOR SCHOOLING IF I WAS ABLE TO RETRAIN.THE 75% THING IS WRONG AND UNFAIR. I WOULD RATHER GET 75% FROM A RSM S PAY THAN A  JUNIOR NCM.

 LETS SAY BOTH WERE INJURED AT THE SAME  TIME TOGETHER. BOTH CANT WORK ANYMORE.I THINK THE RSM WILL LIVE IN COMFORT  AND THE JUNIOR NCM  NOT AS GOOD. THESE INJURIES HAVE ALL KINDS OF IMPLICATIONS IN CIVIE WORLD. FOR EXAMPLE, I APPLIED FOR LIFE AND DISABILITY IN MY MORTAGE . I WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF MY CONDITION. THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WOULD INSURE ME IS  SISIP BECAUSE I HAD AN OLD POLICY. I TRIED TO UP THE LIFE INSURANE .THEY SAID YOU COULD BE DENIED BECAUSE OF YOUR INJURY WAS AFTER THE POLICY AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER NEW HEALTH QUESTIONS. SO HOW ARE YOU TO GET AHEAD? HOW TO YOU PROTECT YOUR FAMILY ? 
WITH THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER, YOU GET A LUMP SUM DEAL PLUS OTHER PERKS.CAUTION ON THE LUMP SUM, THIS HAS TO LAST YOU THE REST OF YOUR LIFE AND THE MAXIMUM PAY OUT IS $250,00 . DVA WILL PAY 75% OF YOUR GROSS PAY MINUS CLAWBACK(SOUNDS LIKE SISIP)WHILE IN 
A REHAB PROGRAM.YOU HAVE TO APPLY.YOU HAVE TO DOT YOUR I' S AND CROSS YOUR TEES TO GET AHEAD . AS A  SOLDIER, I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT ANY OF THIS STUFF UNTIL I WAS INJURED.THEN IT ALL HIT ME THAT THE SYSTEM THAT IS THERE TO PROTECT YOU IS NOT ALL THAT IT SEEMS.ON CBC A FEW NIGHTS AGO WHEN THE DANGER PAY ISSUE CAME UP, DND SAID YOU GET 2 PENSIONS AND 250, 000 DOLLARS IF HURT IN TOUR. THEY DIDNT TELL ABOUT THE CLAW BACKS.
FELLOW SOLDIERS, START ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU POLICIES AND WHAT YOU ARE ENTILED TO IF INJURED. IF YOU ARE INJURED AND SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THESES ISSUES, WRITE TO YOUR
MPP. SHARE YOU STORY  BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY SOLDIERS  OUT THERE LIVING IN SILENCE, HARDSHIPS AND DONT KNOW WHERE TO GO NEXT.IS THAT A WAY FOR A SOLDIER TO BE TREATED FOR SERVING THIS COUNTRY??  

   SUPPORT THE TROOPS  
GUNNER2006


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2006)

Interesting read gunner2006, but could you tone down the shouting? All caps indicate shouting, and make it hard to read...please.


----------



## GUNNER2006 (9 Oct 2006)

Sorry,
Didnt realize I was in caps.No shouting intended.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Oct 2006)

Lord knows, given computers, databases, etc... these days, VAC should automatically start a file on any CF member who has any type of medical disability affect them, not make it an "oh, by the way...you have to apply for a disability pension" type of crap.  If a CF medical determines that there is some medical condition (from ops, training, service in the CF) it should start automatically.

G2G


----------



## RogerD (9 Oct 2006)

Politicans have a way of getting the public "in a tizzy" when they make broad statements. It is very unfortunate that our guys/girls get killed or injured, but that is one of the hazards of what we do. Stating that they are placed in "financial hardship" is totally unfounded. This isn't like winning the lottery and having it taken away, although a 6 month tour looks good in the bank. Allowances start once you land and cease on wheels up, you even keep your allowances while on leave (not sure about H & R). Plans for what you can do with your well earned money is fine but spending before it is earned is ones own decision, albiet not advised.


RD


----------



## RHFC_piper (9 Oct 2006)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Lord knows, given computers, databases, etc... these days, VAC should automatically start a file on any CF member who has any type of medical disability affect them, not make it an "oh, by the way...you have to apply for a disability pension" type of crap.  If a CF medical determines that there is some medical condition (from ops, training, service in the CF) it should start automatically.
> 
> G2G



Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of paperwork to be done for VAC (DVA), SISIP and CF.  I am still in the process of filling out paperwork and I was wounded over a month ago.

Part of the problem is the lack of streamlining.  I currently have 4 doctors, 3 nurse practitioners, and 2 case workers (DVA and CF) whom all want to see me on a regular basis and all report to different departments (DVA / VAC, CF, etc). and they don't really talk to eachother.

Example; I have follow up appointments at the MIR in London (for the 31 CBG docs), The MIR at Downsview (for the LFCA Docs), Sunnybrook hospital (for the care I recieved there), the Hospital in Kitchener ('cause I don't have a family doctor), and the home care nurses do their own follow ups regularly...(this doesn't include the case worker from London or Physio, or psychiatric care, etc) each of them have to submit something to DVA / VAC, CF, etc... none are in much contact with eachother.

So.. in summation: Yes, it would be great if they just plugged your name into a computer and sorted you out once you got hurt, but it just isn't so.  

Oh well... at least it gives me something to do during the day.


----------



## tlg (9 Oct 2006)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Just like Unemployment Insurance. Who will ever collect?
> 
> Can you collect CPP Disability Benefits as a result of being WIA?



Lots of people collect UI. My dad did when Viskase Canada shut down the plant in Lindsay. He went on UI and went back to school. Receieved his MCSE Cert. and now he's on disability resulting from the company.

//EDIT: Sorry for hijacking the thread, just thought it might be relevant to know that people DO use UI.

//EDIT2: Isn't danger pay just that, DANGER PAY? In my mind if your not on a combat tour you're not entitled to danger pay.


----------



## Gunner (9 Oct 2006)

There is no danger pay, there is simply Risk and Hardship (and Hardship Bonus's) Allowances for serving in a special duty area and there is foreign service premiums.  No Danger Pay, No UN allowance, No Separation Pay.  If we (soldiers) can't use the proper terms, how can we ask or rebuke journalists that weave their web of "sensationalish news".


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2006)

tlg

You just stepped outside your lanes.  It is an unfortunate fact, but a member of the CF upon Release, is not immediately eligible to collect UI like any other member of Canada's Workforce.  The amount of time that they must wait will vary on how much of a Severance Package they got, amount or Pension and other factors that the Government holds against them.  So, although members of the CF are required by Law to pay into UI, or EI, they are not eligible to apply for it when they are laid off.

In the same category, is the new "Health Premiums" that various Provinces like Ontario have now levied on members of the CF.  They are required to pay "Health Premiums" to the Province, but are not really entitled to the services, as they are covered by the Military (Federal).  In some Provinces, like Alberta, it is charged under another name and is fully refundable, but not in Ontario.  Again the members of the CF are being 'charged' for 'services' that they will not be able to use.

.....and then there are all those Canadians who still feel that members of the CF don't have to pay Taxes, Rent, etc........just makes your head spin at what the members of the CF to put up with.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> tlg
> 
> You just stepped outside your lanes.  It is an unfortunate fact, but a member of the CF upon Release, is not immediately eligible to collect UI like any other member of Canada's Workforce.  The amount of time that they must wait will vary on how much of a Severance Package they got, amount or Pension and other factors that the Government holds against them.  So, although members of the CF are required by Law to pay into UI, or EI, they are not eligible to apply for it when they are laid off.



George,
Check your facts, this is the same for EVERYBODY,  no one is discriminating against the military here.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> In the same category, is the new "Health Premiums" that various Provinces like Ontario have now levied on members of the CF.  They are required to pay "Health Premiums" to the Province, but are not really entitled to the services, as they are covered by the Military (Federal).  In some Provinces, like Alberta, it is charged under another name and is fully refundable, but not in Ontario.  Again the members of the CF are being 'charged' for 'services' that they will not be able to use.



When someone is driving home on a leave pass and gets in an accident, where do you think he/she goes for treatment?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> George,
> Check your facts, this is the same for EVERYBODY,  no one is discriminating against the military here.



It depends on whether or not they have the same in the way of Severance Packages, Pensions, etc.  In some cases that is true.  In most it isn't as severe.  In other cases, it isn't true at all.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> When someone is driving home on a leave pass and gets in an accident, where do you think he/she goes for treatment?



They will be treated as anyone from anyother Province/State/Country would.  They would use their Leave Pass info and their Green Cross Cards.  They would be expected to use the closest DND Medical facility if possible.  If in a Medical facility other than a CF facility, the Bill would be sent to DND.  Still no Bill to the Province.


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Oct 2006)

It's Blue Cross now George, and your right bill goes to DND, initial monies come out of Provincial pockets to be repaid by Blue Cross (vis a vis DND) and as such the premiums the CF members pay to the Province is essentially our money thrown away.


hmmm thread Hijack much LOL


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> It's Blue Cross now George, and your right bill goes to DND, initial monies come out of Provincialpockets to be repaid by Blue Cross (vis a vis DND) and as such the premiums the CF members pay to the Province is essentially our money thrown away.
> 
> 
> hmmm thread Hijack much LOL



Opps.....Green Cross is for pesticides and such........sorry wrong colour....  ;D


----------



## tlg (15 Oct 2006)

I believe my dad had to wait until his severance was up, but in any case I was just stating that people DO in fact use UI. Personally if you don't use UI you should get some money back or something. Just like I don't agree on how insurance works. But that's just my uninformed thoughts and another story altogether.


----------



## geo (15 Oct 2006)

tlg...
EI (not UI) is like any insurance............... it's there if you need it but, in the end, you'd prefer not being in a situation where you want to claim.

And no, you don't get money back or a discount.


----------



## warrickdll (17 Oct 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> ...
> b.  Should a soldier receive financial compensation for being wounded in action?  I was originally against this but I am now sitting on the fence.  Someone mentioned that if a soldier is injured on the first day in theatre, they should receive the full 6 months of benefits (above) but if they are wounded on their last day in theatre, they only get an additional day.  This doesn't make sense at all.  You either get a lump sum for being wounded or you don't.  No middle ground that would provide for a graduated scale of financial compensation (you either get it or you don't).  The graduated scales are the purview of SISIP and VAC (loss of limbs provide x dollars, etc).  Hence, if anything is given, it must be a lump sum.  1K, 5K or 10K, it doesn't matter to me as the amount is minor in the grand scheme.
> ...



It's been a couple of weeks and I find that my mind has changed to now completely agree with the above quote.

A lump sum (probably between $10,000 - $20,000). No questions asked. No calculations. And separate from any later SISIP/DVA dealings.

In the grand scheme of things it is a small price to pay in comparison. And would give the wounded soldier one less thing to worry about.

A bit of a bump - any word from the "big-brained people" yet?


----------



## battleaxe (19 Oct 2006)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> The point is; the military is now my only coverage.  There aren't many employers in the civilian sector that would want to deal with a freshly wounded, PTSD ladened, potential health insurance leech... even though it sounds like discrimination, its hard to prove when they can easily say they hired someone more qualified. and no matter how qualified you think you are, there's always someone more so... damnit, I'm ranting again.



There is a fight on now, where a soldier is holding DND responsible for his continuing employment under the employment equity law of an employer's "Duty to Accommodate".  Just want you to peek in on another forum (if you haven't already done so)- The Human Rights Commission Challenge under Current events.

Interesting reading for somebody concerned with employability issues after medical release.

Hope it helps..


----------



## RHFC_piper (19 Oct 2006)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> There is a fight on now, where a soldier is holding DND responsible for his continuing employment under the employment equity law of an employer's "Duty to Accommodate".  Just want you to peek in on another forum (if you haven't already done so)- The Human Rights Commission Challenge under Current events.
> 
> Interesting reading for somebody concerned with employability issues after medical release.
> 
> Hope it helps..



Yeah, I've been poking my head in there every once in a while to see how its panning out.  I've pretty much decided to stay out of the general debate about danger pay and such... it's pretty much up to "the smarter people" now.  Besides, it just seems all to political now, and not so much about the troops.  I'll just go with whatever decision the government makes for me.

As for the work issue, I actually left my job a few months before I started work up, so I'm not really eligible for govenment assistance with that... and its my own fault.. oh well.  I just hope it works out for the guys who really need it.

Thanks for the heads up though,

Cheers,

- Piper


----------



## RHFC_piper (3 Mar 2007)

Sorry to revive such an old topic, but I though I'd post an update;

Since the last post here (which, sadly, was mine) the DND and Canadian Government have approved compensation for lost overseas allowance.

The official name is Allowance for Loss of Overseas Allowance (ALOA - not very inventive, but effective), and it has been distributed for most of the wounded who have returned from TF3-06 (and maybe more).

My understanding on how this allowance works is;  The soldier is reimbursed what he or she should have recieved monthly while overseas, but the sum is taxed here in Canada.  To compensate for the tax, the allowance is increased to offset. 
eg. (as it was explained to me) If a solder was to recieve $2000 per month while overseas, where it would be 'Tax Free', then their reimbursement would be increased to cover the amount of tax they'll have to pay here in Canada, so that after taxes, the soldier recieves $2000.

I recieved my ALOA with my pay at the end of February, as did most of the wounded from my tour (those I've talked to or have heard from anyway... and that's quite a few), and this was all explained to me by the CF Ombudsman during a meeting on the 26th of Feb.  

Here is the 'Official' News release:
Link
[quote author=DND/CF NEWS RELEACE: December 15, 2006]
*Canada's New Government Announces New Allowance for Canadian Forces Members*
NR–06.094 - December 15, 2006

OTTAWA– The Honourable Gordon O’Connor, Minister of National Defence, and General Rick Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, are pleased to announce a new universal allowance for Canadian Forces (CF) members who are wounded as a result of hostile action or become injured or ill as a result of the conditions in theatres of operation.

The Allowance for Loss of Operational Allowance (ALOA) will compensate members who are medically repatriated from operations after becoming wounded or very seriously injured or ill as a result of the conditions in theatres of operation. In such situations, the CF member will receive this new allowance until the last date of their planned deployment. For example, if a member is initially deployed for a six-month tour of duty and is wounded after one month, this member would receive the ALOA for the five remaining months.

The new allowance structure will:

  -  Compensate members for the loss of allowances upon repatriation from an operational theatre after becoming wounded, very seriously injured or ill; 

  -  Mitigate the burden faced by members and their families when other operational allowances cease; and 

  -  Ensure that the loss of operational allowance(s) is recognized in a satisfactory manner. 

“Canada’s New Government is pleased to announce that the new operational allowance structure will better meet the needs of all Canadian Forces members and their families,” said Minister O’Connor. “The new structure means that the brave men and women serving in a theatre of operations will receive financial compensation if their involvement ceases before the end of their rotation period.”

All CF members who are deployed on foreign military operations are paid what are called operational allowances. For example, a CF member deployed for a first tour in Kandahar, Afghanistan would receive more than $1900 per month, tax-free, above their regular pay as an operational allowance. In addition, their regular pay is also income-tax exempt up to $6647 per month.  These benefits apply equally to all CF members on the mission, regardless of rank or position.  

“The new allowance will enable us to take better care of our soldiers who get sick or injured and must come back to Canada before the end of their tour,” explained Hillier. “These valued members of our family have put themselves at risk on behalf of Canadians, and the new allowance stands as testament that we will take care of them upon their return,” he added.
[/quote]

I know this is an old press release and this my be old news in general, I just wanted to confirm that soldiers are being compensated, and if there are any out there who haven't yet, and meet the criteria it would be prudent to contact your chain of command and start asking questions.

- Piper


----------



## MikeM (3 Mar 2007)

Piper,

Just got off the phone with a buddy from 1 VP who was on the 1-06 Roto.. I can confirm as well he received his ALOA, he was repatted 2 months into tour. It's good to see guys are getting their money.


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

Strongly disagree with this policy, as do people I know who were wounded.  It is a reaction to public opinion, a public who does not ahve all the facts all the time.  It is simple, if you are no longer in a dangerous area, you no longer warrant danger pay.  If not in theater, then no more theater pay.  How retroactive is this policy?  Can a guy wounded in Cyprus and sent home clain for all his lost earnings?


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Strongly disagree with this policy, as do people I know who were wounded.



So it is safe to assume that based on your statement, the people you know who were wounded will be refusing the Allowance for Loss of Overseas Allowance (ALOA) or sending the payment back, based on their principles?

That way the government will see what the troops really feel.

Keep us posted.

dileas

tess


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

Exactly.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

hmm,

Interesting, wonder how the public will react when the media get a hold of this information.

Should be a quite the news story. Wounded Troops refusing and returning danger pay, based on principle.

dileas

tess


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

Sarcasm is a wonderful tool. is'nt it?  Well done on using it so eloquently. 
The soldiers that fight in Afghanistan today are different from soldiers of other wars and peacekeeping missions.  The way that you sarcastically ridicule the possibility of a soldier being too damn proud to expect a handout says little.  believe it or not, there are soldiers who, although wounded, would rather get back to grips with the enemy and sort them out well before they accept more money from the government.  One day they will sit back and think of the things that money could have got them, but they will sleep easy knowing that they killed more enemy instead and didn't spend their lives complaining of what they deserve and what they  didn't get.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

I'm a bit iffy about the policy; however, if someone were to give me a few grand, well....

Kiwi does raise a good point: how far back does this go?  Troops from Cyprus 74?  I doubt it.  Bosnia/Croatia in the 90's?  Dunno.  But getting money to the troops is a good thing.  The only thing I personally find "iffy" is the knee-jerk reaction of the whole affair.  Still money to the troops, as I said, is never really a bad thing.

Now, I'm usually sarcastic, but again Kiwi makes a good point about wanting back in the fight (as it were).  I still remember the old 309 (3): Infantry Platoon and Section in battle.  One point about casualties, both physical and mental, is to get them back into the fight as soon as possible in order to reduce the long term psychological effects.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

Uhuh,

So, are they returning the Money or are you making that up?  As a former wounded soldier, I take an interest in the view of modern wounded soldiers, just find it interesting you commenting on that.

And this wanting back in the fight, must be a new concept too....

dileas

tess


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

Why woulnt they want to get back in the fight?  As for the money, thats what they say, so who am I to question whether they will or will not.  But as for getting back at timmy taliban, you bet your a**.  Like I said, a different breed of soldier.  Warfighters, each an every one of them.  And it isnt a new concept at all.  March towards the sound of the guns.  Not away from it.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And this wanting back in the fight, must be a new concept too....



It's my continued theme of sarcasm....

Different breed of soldier, yep, stop the act Kiwi99.  You got a point make it, you want to comment on the feelings wounded , then back up what you say.  Especially when someone asks a question, instead attacking.

You find me sarcastic?  I find you condescending.  You seem to forget this is a forum made of people who have served, and have felt the same as you and the modern soldier.

dileas

tess

edit spelling and grammar


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

Well then say what ya gotta say and can the sarcasm.  All that does is get people pissed off.  My point is, wounded soldiers getting paid all their allownaces for theater when they are not in theater is wrong!  You get hit, you get medevaced.  And as stated in this thread earlier, they get more than that from their benefits and so on from Govt orgs and VA.  And that system has improved also.  Where is the cut off point for these allowances?  Nobody seems sure, so are we going to have issues with Cyprus and Bosnia Vets like yourself getting left out.  What criteria has to be met.  As a result of enemy action, or breaking an ankle going for a run?
And what of the soldiers that do not get wounded. Then they should get an extra bonus as well, for not getting hit.  Sounds good to me.  
Endstate being this, it mis an open ended policy that will not cover all the bases and does nothing for the CF as a whole.  Toom many people have jumped on a band wagon that has no driver.  Sounds good in principle but fails in practicality.  
I am aware that this is a forum where serving and ex members can communicate.  But money is not the answer to this problem. What is, who knows.  But money is not the answer.  maybe we should keep it the way it was for years.  But if people keep on this drive for paying off soldiers, what next?


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

Hey Well said,

Again, my question is, you spoke to wounded soldiers that disagree with this policy, will they be refusing this money and returning it?

If that is the case, then your point is valid, in that the actual soldiers affected will tell it to the government.

Answer me that, is all, why you went a rant about my sarcasm and talking about the new breed of warrior is beyond me.

dileas

tess


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (4 Mar 2007)

George is right about UI. If you receive a pension from the military (for 10 or more years service) you are not eligible for UI benefits. If you have less than 10 years, you receive return of contributions, this must be used + your severance, before you can become eligible for UI. The calculations for this are complicated and at the end only benefit the government. You can place this money into an RRSP, which will shorten the time period some , but now you do not have direct access to that money without paying a second huge tax penalty. The system makes sure that the government always benefits.

A few years ago the RCMP tried this UI subject in court and lost, they are under the same system as the military.

Bottom line is, if you draw a military or RCMP pension ,you will never see UI benefits, unless of course, its from employment benefits after retiring from the military.

So for all your career minded types, ;D when you look at your pay sheets and see the UI benefits deducted box, this is money which you will never see again. You are paying for someone elses benefit.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

Guys.....let's take a breather and agree to disagree...or agree violently...whichever.  Or take it to PMs.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

Will do Hauptmann,

Once I get my answer.  I am curious, and I find such an answer desrves to be made avaiable to all.

We have agreed, and agreed to disagree in the past Kiwi and I.

dileas

tess


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

They are a different breed of soldier in a sense that most of them haven't been involved with peacekeeping of any kind, nor have they wanted to.  The Ptes and Cpls in todays army joined for the reason of going to Afghanistan and fighting a war and killing the enemy.  that is what makes them different from other soldiers.  They haven't been polluted by the peacekeeping myth.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Mar 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Bottom line is, if you draw a military or RCMP pension ,you will never see UI benefits.



Right now I am getting medical EI benefits while VAC figures out settlement amounts, rehab monthly funding,(new charter coverage), back dated monthly pension( old charter). Now EI does not mind both, BUT VAC is going to clawback amounts paid from medical EI when every thing is finally settled. My EI representative both sent myself a letter to forward on to VAC and personally phoned VAC to advance his opinion of the claw back.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

> Again, my question is, you spoke to wounded soldiers that disagree with this policy, will they be refusing this money and returning it?




dileas

polluted Peacekeeping soldier


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

refusing!!!


----------



## RHFC_piper (4 Mar 2007)

Just a heads up for those who are arguing the point;

1) I was wounded and was medevacted after only 3 weeks in theater
2) I recieved my ALOA and have no intentions of returning it and don't know anyone who has been wounded who would or has (at least not from my tour)
3) I would like nothing better than to 'get back into the fight', but first I'd like to walk with out a limp, and perhaps run again... Physio may take time... lots of time.
4) VA, the 'Govt' and CF have given me the grand total of $0, and because of the nature of my wounds, and the fact that I might be employable again, someday, I won't be getting anything from them for a very very long time, if at all.
5) Overseas allowance is an incentive for troops to deploy... take that incentive away for any reason and troops won't want to deploy.  

I would gladly go back over to Afghanistan. so much so that I requested to go back with the company 1 RCR is sending with 3 RCR in 2008.  But... and this is a big one... as of late, I've had some issues with my current contract and pay that have almost made me want to leave the forces all together. (I won't go into detail, as the issue has been solved and I'm no longer in serious debt... but I was worried).

The ALOA I recieved, to me, isn't an 'XBOX' or 'New TV', it is rather a cushion for when the Military either decides to cut me loose or deems me employable back in the real world.  Since I'm a reservist, that means going to find a real job, which may be difficult as standing for an hour leads me to taking mutiple pain pills.  And if that doesn't work out, then I have to wait for VAC or 'the Govt', which, as anyone who has delt with them know, takes a long, long time.

Unfortunately, as I've recently found out, bills don't wait for VAC, 'the Govt' or the CF.

It's easy for those who are not in this situation to question and attack it, but I can guarantee that if you found yourself in this situation, you'd find yourself changing your tune.

As I've said before, and as been said many times by others; I wasn't begging for this money, but since it's been handed too me, I'm not going to turn it down. 

As much as I'd like to continue this arguement, I just don't see the point anymore.  It's done, and unless it effects you, you'll never understand.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> refusing!!!



Cheers,

That's what I wanted to hear, the wounded soldiers are refusing to accept the ALOA implemented by the current government.

dileas

tess


----------



## Gunner98 (4 Mar 2007)

Has anyone seen any policy documents on the continuation of allowances?  There is a 27 Jan 07 policy document that extends Operational Allowance to 25 days (if hospitalized in LMRC) or return date to Canada whichever comes first.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> They are a different breed of soldier in a sense that most of them haven't been involved with peacekeeping of any kind, nor have they wanted to.  The Ptes and Cpls in todays army joined for the reason of going to Afghanistan and fighting a war and killing the enemy.  that is what makes them different from other soldiers.  They haven't been polluted by the peacekeeping myth.



Kiwi99
you had better pull back and reevaluate. Seems to me in the public forum of information that you ignore, I guess those Croats in the Medak died of natural cause ? Did the Greeks and Turks in March of 1974 also die of natural causes ? I guess also there was a massive amount of CAR training accidents which led to "By the end of the operation, more than 30 CAR men had been wounded and two had been killed."(Bercuson) So you can perpetuate a myth or do a little research. And maybe if you were not so opinionated some of those "peace keeping " privates and corporals would let you in on some of the unknown history.

Source:
 Bercuson, David. Significant Incident: Canada's Army, the Airborne, and the Murder in Somalia (pg 195)


----------



## Dirty Patricia (4 Mar 2007)

> 5) Overseas allowance is an incentive for troops to deploy... take that incentive away for any reason and troops won't want to deploy.



The money is nice and it pays for my Harley, but that's not why we go.


----------



## Navy_Blue (4 Mar 2007)

I still can't agree with this ALOA thing. IT means all three services will get it when sent home.  If I'm floating around in the Gulf Iranians like too point Missiles at the ship.  In the CF's mind that constitutes danger pay.  If I roll the wrong way and fall out of the third bunk and hurt my back I would go home and get this ALOA.  If I go home I would just be happy to get home and I wouldn't expect to keep my pay.  Its an Allowance no one should base a budget off of it.  Its like Sea pay.  If I loose my Sea pay after getting hurt and have to stay ashore for a few months should I get this too??  I Know these guys are coming home in allot of cases really messed up and they probably thought after 6 months they could come home and buy a house with all the extra cash.  Crap happens I will never rely on Sea pay or include it in my monthly Budget and Foreign Service pay should be the same thing.

Instead of doing all this they should expedite the Med Pension and give real consideration for a lump sum payout that doesn't insult injured troops.  $250000 is nothing if you can't walk, loose your sight or what ever.  The only reason the feds change anything is to save money.  They are saving money by giving everyone a set amount.  I dislocated my shoulder on watch.  Tore a tendon needed surgery and the joint will never be the same.  I don't know how long it takes you guys to get answers but its going on 1 1/2 for me.  I'm luckey I'm still functional and can do my job.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> The Ptes and Cpls in todays army joined for the reason of going to Afghanistan and fighting a war and killing the enemy.  that is what makes them different from other soldiers.  They haven't been polluted by the peacekeeping myth.



When i joined the engineers back in 1993, i was not "polluted" by peacekeeping.  I joined the military to fight, nothing else. The only thing that diferentiates me from soldiers today is that there is a war on now. Plain and simple.


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

When I speak of being polluted by the peacekeeping myth, I will break it down for you.  The young soldiers of today know little of what happened in yogo or cyprus back in the day.  While the media was broadcasting how great and noble peacekeeping was, these dude and dudettes were at school, or out playing sports.  How many kids would rather hit a hockey puck than watch the news.  Therefore, their minds havent been polluted by the peacekeeping dilema.  Many only joined after sept 11 so that they could go to war, and when the war is over they will be gone again.
So for those that are offended by the pollution comment, this is what it means.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

What is your assessment of today's leadership, considering many of them have been polluted by peacekeeping?

dileas

tess


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Mar 2007)

> The soldiers that fight in Afghanistan today are different from soldiers of other wars and peacekeeping missions.



You don't suppose that soldiers from previous wars thought that about the ones that came before them?
muskrat89 - the poster

This thread is teetering on the brink of a 24-hour timeout.
muskrat89 - the Staff


----------



## Gunner98 (4 Mar 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> The young soldiers of today know little of what happened in yogo or cyprus back in the day.  While the media was broadcasting how great and noble peacekeeping was, these dude and dudettes were at school, or out playing sports.  How many kids would rather hit a hockey puck than watch the news.  Therefore, their minds havent been polluted by the peacekeeping dilema.  Many only joined after sept 11 so that they could go to war, and when the war is over they will be gone again. So for those that are offended by the pollution comment, this is what it means.



Generalizations (young soldiers of today, kids and many) don't always make good fodder for arguments.  Some of these soldiers have post-secondary education, and read (or at least delivered) newspapers.


----------



## Kiwi99 (4 Mar 2007)

Let me give an example.  A couple of days after we had 4KIA and 10WIA from my platoon alone, a very senior leader in theater, explained to us how it was trajic that we had lost these men, but to remember that these things happen in the "harder side of peacekeeping".

How do you suppose that went down with the crowd.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Mar 2007)

Dunno,

I am not on the sharp end anymore, how did it go?

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Mar 2007)

If I were a mod, I would have locked this thread.  I'm not a mod, so I can't. Again, I can only urge to all to refrain from posting.  Remember, in an internet argument, nobody wins.  The points are made, counterpoints are made, and so it goes, ad infinitum, until perhaps someone makes a reference to Hitler and/or Nazism, and proves right the Absurdio ad Hilterum of internet chats. 
The policy has been implemented by the government.  That's a fact.  Anything beyond that is either opinion or speculation and nothing anyone says here or elsewhere will change things.

So, again, let's all stop doing this:

 :deadhorse:


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Mar 2007)

Locked until tomorrow, at the earliest.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## navymich (18 Mar 2007)

The Canforgen is out on this now:

R 081951Z MAR 07
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
NATO UNCLAS CANFORGEN 050/07 CMP 019
SIC WWA
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJ: ALLOWANCE - LOSS OF OPERATIONAL ALLOWANCES (ALOA)
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS INSTRUCTION (CBI) 210.536
B. CBI 10.3.04(9)
C. CBI CHAPTER 205
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO CONFIRM THE CREATION OF A NEW
ALLOWANCE, EFFECTIVE 1 JAN 06, FOR CF MEMBERS WHO ARE MEDICALLY
REPATRIATED FROM AN OPERATION AS A RESULT OF WOUNDS, INJURIES, OR
ILLNESSES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE CONDITIONS OR ACTIVITIES
IN-THEATRE.  THIS NEW POLICY, WHICH IS DEFINED AT REF A, REFLECTS A
SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF MILITARY CASUALTY
2. CURRENTLY, CF MEMBERS SERVING IN OPERATIONS RECEIVE VARIOUS
MONTHLY OPERATIONAL ALLOWANCES FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR DEPLOYMENT.
 HOWEVER, WHEN A MEMBER IS HOSPITALIZED AND/OR A DECISION IS TAKEN
THAT THE MEMBER MUST BE REPATRIATED AS A RESULT OF HIS/HER MEDICAL
CONDITION, THEN OPERATIONAL ALLOWANCES CEASE
3.  AS A RESULT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALOA ALLOWANCE, A
MEMBER WHO IS REPATRIATED FOR MEDICAL REASONS MAY BE ENTITLED TO THE
NEW ALLOWANCE, EFFECTIVE THE DATE THAT CURRENT OPERATIONAL
ALLOWANCES CEASE TO A DATE THAT COINCIDES WITH THE ORIGINAL
DEPLOYMENT END-DATE
4. THIS ALLOWANCE APPLIES ONLY TO INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
5. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALOA, A MILITARY CASUALTY IS A MEMBER OF THE
CF WHO BECOMES INJURED AS A RESULT OF HOSTILE ACTION(S) OR BECOMES
ILL AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEPLOYMENT TO A
DEGREE THAT REQUIRES THE MEMBER TO BE REPATRIATED FROM THEATRE.
NOTE THAT INHERENT IN THIS DEFINITION ARE INJURIES THAT ARE A DIRECT
RESULT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF REQUIRED MILITARY DUTIES NECESSARY FOR
THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE ASSIGNED MISSION
6. ELIGIBILITY FOR ALOA IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TASK FORCE
COMMANDER ON THE RTU MSG
7. THE NEW ALLOWANCE IS A MONTHLY RATE WHICH IS DETERMINED BASED ON
THE FOLLOWING:
A. SUM OF A MEMBERS MONTHLY ALLOWANCE PAID UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
REFS B AND C THAT WERE CEASED UPON NOTIFICATION OF THEIR EARLY
REPATRIATION
B. A MONTHLY AMOUNT OF EIGHT HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE DOLLARS IN LIEU
OF THE TAX RELIEF RECEIVED UNDER PART 1 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR
QUALIFIED MEMBERS AND
C. BOTH AMOUNTS ARE MULTIPLIED BY A FACTOR OF ONE POINT THREE FIVE
PERCENT
8. THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS ALLOWANCE APPROPRIATELY COMPENSATES CF
MEMBERS WHO ARE REPATRIATED FROM INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS FOR
MEDICAL REASONS, MITIGATES THE BURDEN FACED BY MEMBERS AND THEIR
FAMILIES WHEN OTHER OPERATIONAL ALLOWANCES CEASE, AND RECOGNIZES IN
A SATISFACTORY MANNER THE LOSS OF OPERATIONAL ALLOWANCES
9. ADMINISTRATION OF THIS ALLOWANCE WILL BE THE TOPIC OF A SEPARATE
AIG MESSAGE TO BE ISSUED BY DAPPP.  CBI ON THIS ALLOWANCE WILL BE
AVAILABLE ON THE FOLLOWING DGCB INTRANET WEB-SITE:
HTTP://HR.3OTTAWA-HULL.MIL.CA/DGCB/DPPD/ALLOWANCE/ENGRAPH/ALLOWTAB(U
UNDERSCORE)E.ASP?SIDESECTIONE(EQUAL)3(AMPERSAND)SIDECAT(EQUAL)30
10. QUERIES REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION/PROCESSING OF PAYMENTS MAY
BE DIRECTED TO:
A. POLICY - DIRECTOR PAY POLICY DEVELOPMENT (DPPD) 5, MAJ R.
FORCIER, AT 613-995-1949, CPO1 J. MONTPETIT, DPPD 5-2, AT
613-995-5348, OR CAPT M. DUPONT, DPPD 5-3, AT 613-995-8719 AND
B. MILITARY PAY POLICY AND PROCEDURES, DIRECTOR ACCOUNTS
PROCESSING, PAY AND PENSIONS, CAPT D. DEGREVE, AT 613-995-8398 OR
PO1 T. MCCARTHY, AT 613-995-8638
END OF ENGLISH TEST/


----------



## HItorMiss (18 Mar 2007)

Repats from 3-06 recieved their returned allowences mid Feb.


----------



## McG (18 Mar 2007)

I had a soldier returned to Canada for injuries.  Just over a month later he arrived back in Afghanistan as his own replacement.  Be interested to hear how ALOA accomodates these situations.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 Mar 2007)

MCG, If he was injured in combat and returned he received his full allowances for the time he missed from cessation of them till they restarted again. There were 2 persons in my company who were wounded and returnted to finish the tour and they both received the allowances they were entitled to.


----------

