# Attn: Veterans/survivors of veterans



## 284_226 (6 Nov 2006)

First, a little background.

Some of you may be familiar with the New Veterans Charter - http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF - which came into force on April 1, 2006.  Part 4 of the New Veterans Charter is a new provision for Health Benefits (Section 66), alluding to the Public Service Health Care Plan (PSHCP).

Section 66 subsection (2) reads:



> (2) A member, a veteran or a member’s or a veteran’s survivor may elect to participate in a group insurance program referred to in subsection (1) *if they meet the prescribed eligibility requirements*.



Unfortunately, the Veterans Charter does not spell out the "prescribed eligibility requirements".

However, section 66 refers to Treasury Board as being the approval authority for all terms and conditions in respect of the group insurance program.

On the Treasury Board website at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/bp-rasp/benefits-avantages/hcp-rss/hcp-rss_e.asp, there is a "New Public Service Health Care Plan Directive (Effective April 1, 2006)".  If one follows that link, it describes the new PSHCP.  On that page, there is an "Eligibility" link (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_862/pshcpd-drssfp/pshcpd-drssfp03_e.asp).  If one goes there, it states:



> III – Pensioners
> 
> 1. Any person in receipt of an ongoing recognised pension, survivor's or children's benefit pursuant to an Act identified in Schedule IV, as amended from time to time by the Treasury Board of Canada, is eligible to join or to continue coverage under the PSHCP when their pension becomes payable (except those persons who immediately prior to retirement were employed by a non-participating organisation on or after the specified date as identified in Schedule II of this Plan Document).
> *2. Any individual who is a member of the VAC client group as defined in Schedule III is eligible to join the Plan.*



If one looks to the left of the webpage, there is a link to "Schedule III" (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_862/pshcpd-drssfp/pshcpd-drssfp21_e.asp).

At Schedule III, it states:



> Schedule III - Designated Persons, Boards and Agencies
> 
> *The following persons*, boards and agencies as amended from time to time by the Treasury Board of Canada *were designated by Treasury Board of Canada, on the date shown, as being eligible to join the Plan*:
> 
> ...



Now, more about the problem.  My mother falls into the last group - my father passed away in 2001 as a result of his military service, and VAC awarded a 100% disability pension (nearly a year after his death, due to the length of the appeal process).  My mother now receives the VAC survivor benefit.  

When the New Veterans Charter came into force last April, I encouraged my mother to apply for the PSHCP coverage.  In June 2006, she received a letter from VAC stating the following:



> Survivors of CF members and Veterans are eligible to enrol in the PSHCP through VAC if:
> 
> - the CF member or Veteran died as a result of military service on or after April 1, 2006, the date the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act came into force, and the survivor does not otherwise have PSHCP eligibility.
> 
> Unfortunately, in your particular case, you do not meet the criteria mentioned above and your application for the PSHCP cannot be approved.



Several phone calls to VAC have failed to get them to move from their stance that survivors are not eligible for coverage unless the member died after April 1, 2006 - despite the fact that there's nothing in the legislation mentioning this.  I also pointed out that had the authors of the legislation intended to exclude members who died prior to April 1, 2006, they would have included a clause such as was included in Section 6 of the New Charter.  Section 6 restricts eligibility to Rehab services, vocational assistance and financial benefits, which is Part 2 of the Charter.  Specifically:



> 6. This Part does not apply in respect of a physical or a mental health problem that resulted primarily from
> (a) service in the Canadian Forces on or before April 1, 1947; or
> (b) service in the Korean War, as that term is defined in subsection 3(1) of the Pension Act.



Right now, there are two Members of Parliament that are inquiring into this issue with the Minister of Veterans Affairs.  I've chosen not to seek assistance from the Legion for personal reasons.

If you're a veteran or survivor in one of the groups listed at Schedule III of the PSHCP Directive, and you're not already covered under the Public Service Health Care Plan, it certainly appears that you're eligible for PSHCP coverage.  Bear in mind that under the New Veterans Charter, "Canadian Forces" is defined as "*the armed forces referred to in section 14 of the National Defence Act, and includes any predecessor naval, army or air forces of Canada or Newfoundland*".

I'm not seeking any personal information from anyone, nor am I representing any person or group.  I just thought I'd pass this information along so that anyone who may have been previously turned down for PSHCP coverage, or was unaware that they were eligible for it can take the opportunity to call VAC and confirm their coverage eligibility.  If you fit into the groups above, yet VAC insists that you're ineligible because of the 1 April 2006 criteria, you can then get in contact with your Member of Parliament and have the situation addressed.  I suspect there's a significant number of eligible people out there, and the more of you that press the issue, the faster VAC will address it - or one would hope.


----------



## Sandy Skipton (7 Nov 2006)

Are you aware of FSNA ( Federal Superannuates National Association, to protect and enhance your pensioner's benefits)  www.FSNA.com 
This may be a topic that they would be interested in looking into since one of their items is "To access individual help on matters related to your pension, health and dental insurance and other issues facing seniors"

I hope this part of The Veterans Charter is looked into, as it may be one of the corrections that should be made to a new charter...


----------



## 284_226 (8 Nov 2006)

MIKsam said:
			
		

> Are you aware of FSNA ( Federal Superannuates National Association, to protect and enhance your pensioner's benefits)  www.FSNA.com
> This may be a topic that they would be interested in looking into since one of their items is "To access individual help on matters related to your pension, health and dental insurance and other issues facing seniors"



I had heard of them, but hadn't realized their scope included health insurance - thanks for the tip.  I've called the local Health Benefits Officer and left a voicemail.  Should be interesting to see if they're aware of the situation.  The two MPs I've contacted so far agree 100%, the PSHCP should be available to the groups listed in the Treasury Board Directive.



> I hope this part of The Veterans Charter is looked into, as it may be one of the corrections that should be made to a new charter...



Yes, it does appear that there are quite a few areas requiring tweaking in the existing Charter....


----------



## 284_226 (9 Nov 2006)

Update:  

My phone call to the local FSNA Health Benefits Liaison Officer was returned today - by their assistant.  After explaining the situation to her, I listened to her madly flipping pages, and telling me that VAC has it right.  I asked what she was looking at for a reference, and she informed me that she was looking at the 2003 printed version of the PSHCP guide.  I explained (again) that the eligibility arose from the April 2006 changes in the New Veterans Charter.

She then said she was afraid she couldn't be of any more help and wished me luck with my inquiries made through the MPs...

A phone call to the Treasury Board Secretariat didn't get anywhere either, despite the fact that the PSHCP Directive is from TBS themselves.  They told me they don't do interpretations, and that it's Veterans Affairs that does that.

Guess I'll have to wait and see how the inquiries raised by the MPs to the Minister of Veterans Affairs pan out.

Bureaucracy at its finest...  :brickwall:


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

Update:

I just got a call from Peter Stoffer, the MP for the Shearwater area.  He made inquiries with VAC and the Minister of Veterans Affairs office regarding my mother's situation with regards to the denied PSHCP coverage.

He informed me that he was told exactly the same thing we've been told - that the interpretation of the New Veterans Charter being used by VAC is that benefits under the New Charter do not apply to members who died or were injured prior to the implementation date, which was 1 April 2006.  He asked them to show him the applicable part of the legislation that limits benefits only to those after the implementation date, and didn't get an answer other than "That's our interpretation".  VAC appears to be of the opinion that nothing in the New Charter applies to affected members prior to the implementation date, despite the presence of the clause in Section 6 concerning exclusions of certain members (Korea, and pre-1947 service) to Rehab services.  That clause is completely superfluous if none of the Charter applies to anyone before 1 April 2006, so one would think someone with common sense would look at that and say that the Charter does have application to members killed or injured prior to the implementation date.  Unless, of course, VAC is in the habit of putting completely useless and superfluous clauses in their legislation  

Mr. Stoffer advised me to write directly to the MND, cc: to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and confront them with the problem.  He's absolutely baffled at VAC's response.  If writing to the responsible ministers doesn't obtain results, he's offered to help bring it to the media.

Absolutely boggling, it is...


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Nov 2006)

So wouldn't your mother be "Grandfathered" , for use fo a better term, under the old system?

I know I am, as my family with regards to my claims.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss (25 Nov 2006)

Sounds like something you miht get intrested in Tess?

Keep me posted


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So wouldn't your mother be "Grandfathered" , for use fo a better term, under the old system?
> 
> I know I am, as my family with regards to my claims.



Under what criteria were you eligible for PSHCP coverage as of your release date?

My father had service from 1951-1956 - and the PSHCP didn't exist then, nor would he have had a pension or disability which would have rendered him eligible after his release, even if it had existed.

The New Veterans Charter introduced PSHCP coverage for those who weren't otherwise eligible for coverage.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Nov 2006)

So your father collected no pension via VAC?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So your father collected no pension via VAC?



Yes, he did - he applied in Sept '01 (when we found out he was suffering from asbestosis), died in Oct '01, and when the application/appeal process was concluded in April '02, he was awarded a 100% disability pension.  That also resulted in my mother getting a Survivor benefit, backdated to the application date, and she also received my father's benefit for one year after his death.

VAC is claiming that since his death occurred prior to 1 April 06, the implementation date of the New Charter, that none of the benefits associated with the Charter apply to him or my mother - despite what the TBS/PSHCP Directive website says.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Nov 2006)

So your mother continues, after the year, to collect the monthly amount awarded to your father?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So your mother continues, after the year, to collect the monthly amount awarded to your father?



Nope, his benefit ceased one year after his death.  She was eligible (and continues to receive) the Survivor Benefit as of the date of his death.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Nov 2006)

The Survivors benefit is based on the amount given to your father, correct.  Now if you do not mind me asking, your father received 100%.  Of that amount, what would your mothers percentage be?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The Survivors benefit is based on the amount given to your father, correct.  Now if you do not mind me asking, your father received 100%.  Of that amount, what would your mothers percentage be?



I'll correct myself here.  As of the date of his death, she receives the pensioner's benefit for one year, and receives her spousal amount for one year.  After one year, the member's pension and spousal rate ceases and the Survivor Benefit takes over.  Since his disability pension was assessed at >48% disability, the Survivor Benefit is at the full rate - which is 75% of the pensioner's rate.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Nov 2006)

Ok,

So let me put this all together.  When your father was living, he collected a pension at %100.  He carried a card like this;







http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=services/identcard/card

Which allowed him to receive compensation, and treatment for the awarded conditions.  AT 100 percent I am also sure he was awarded the VIP program.

At this time your mother collected only a certain portion based on her being a spouse.  Based on this chart they would have received as follows.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/SUB.CFM?source=forces/disa#rates

Rate   Disability         Spouse
          Pension  
5%     $108.57             $27.14 
100% $2,171.32       $542.83  

At no time did she receive coverage under his VIP medical coverage, except for certain services (grounds keeping. home maintenance etc).

Since your fathers passing, according to your post, your mother now collects %75, which would equate to  $1628.29

Now I do not want to sound like a beurocrat, however, the new veterans charter is intended to award compensation to those claims placed after the April 1st 2006 date.  Your father had already passed on by then.  If your mother were to achieve victory, then every veterans dependant has a case to go after VAC for the same reasons.  This would now change the budget intended for Veterans and the support of their family, to solely a welfare project to Dependants.

As callous as this sounds, if in all this time your mother did not have an insurance policy to care for her, then I suggest you help her out by going here.

Blue Cross Canada

Your aggressive efforts to finding an answer you wish was there, would be better placed in helping her now.  You are just aggravating her more, by promising empty benefits that are not there, or intended for her.


Those are my two cents, that is from a Veteran who already has to wait to get the benefits as it is without people bogging the system with pipedreams.

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> So let me put this all together.  When your father was living, he collected a pension at %100.  He carried a card like this;
> 
> ...



Well, he would have - had he not died before the pension was granted.



> Which allowed him to receive compensation, and treatment for the awarded conditions.  AT 100 percent I am also sure he was awarded the VIP program.



Again, he would have been eligible for the VIP program - had he been alive at the time the pension was granted.  Since he was not in receipt of the VIP benefits on the date of his death, he (and consequently, my mother) never gained eligibility for VIP benefits.



> At this time your mother collected only a certain portion based on her being a spouse.  Based on this chart they would have received as follows.
> 
> http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/SUB.CFM?source=forces/disa#rates
> 
> ...



Correct, although I think you're confusing two separate programs.  Neither my father nor mother were ever in receipt of VIP benefits (which includes the services listed at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=services/vip#what).  The medical coverage I speak of is the "Health Benefits" provisions under the New Veterans Charter, specifically the PSHCP. 



> Since your fathers passing, according to your post, your mother now collects %75, which would equate to  $1628.29



Correct.



> Now I do not want to sound like a beurocrat, however, the new veterans charter is intended to award compensation to those claims placed after the April 1st 2006 date.



Then I'll ask you the same question I posed to VAC - Can you show me where it says that is the intent of the New Veterans Charter?  

If the intent was to limit benefits under the New Charter to those who were injured/killed after the April 1 2006, then why was it necessary to include a clause in the New Charter under Section 6 which specifically denies Rehab benefits to those who served in Korea, or those who served before April 1, 1947? 



> Your father had already passed on by then.  If your mother were to achieve victory, then every veterans dependant has a case to go after VAC for the same reasons.  This would now change the budget intended for Veterans and the support of their family, to solely a welfare project to Dependants.



I have to disagree.  If you read the legislation closely, only those veterans (and by extension, survivors) *who were injured or died directly as a result of military duty* are eligible for the benefits under the New Charter.  Take a look at the "Eligibility" clauses in the New Veterans Charter at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF, specifically Section 66(2).  Then take a look at Schedule 3 of the PSHCP Directive at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_862/pshcpd-drssfp/pshcpd-drssfp21_e.asp, specifically where it says 





> *The following persons, boards and agencies as amended from time to time by the Treasury Board of Canada were designated by Treasury Board of Canada, on the date shown, as being eligible to join the Plan:
> *
> (...)
> 
> ...





> As callous as this sounds, if in all this time your mother did not have an insurance policy to care for her, then I suggest you help her out by going here.
> 
> Blue Cross Canada
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, prescription coverage is only available from Blue Cross for those 65 and under.

I disagree 100% with your assessment of the case.  You're actually the first person who's been presented the case that doesn't see where the eligibility arises under the New Veterans Charter.  It's abundantly clear that the benefits are not just for those affected after the implementation date, as evidenced by the number of references in the Charter to service prior to April 1 1947 and service in Korea.

I've already got two Members of Parliament that say VAC is reading something that just isn't there.  The answer is in the Charter - someone at VAC just needs to read the thing.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Nov 2006)

Alright,

I will respond, and ask a few more questions



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Well, he would have - had he not died before the pension was granted.
> 
> Again, he would have been eligible for the VIP program - had he been alive at the time the pension was granted.  Since he was not in receipt of the VIP benefits on the date of his death, he (and consequently, my mother) never gained eligibility for VIP benefits.



Your father passed on in 2001, However, and was awarded a pension afterwards.  This included all benefits to your mother.  Did you seek any form of care for your mother, via an insurance program in the five years since then?  I would assume by your statement that she was was beyond 65 years, therefore she was unable to go via blue cross, however they do deal with those that are beyond that age....Maybe I am confused, you did try with them?



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Correct, although I think you're confusing two separate programs.  Neither my father nor mother were ever in receipt of VIP benefits (which includes the services listed at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=services/vip#what).  The medical coverage I speak of is the "Health Benefits" provisions under the New Veterans Charter, specifically the PSHCP.



So you did not seek further aid for your mother, although it was available. Was this an assumption on your part that she was not eligible, much like insurance benefits covered by an insurance program such as B.C  or were you officially presented this information?



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Then I'll ask you the same question I posed to VAC - Can you show me where it says that is the intent of the New Veterans Charter?
> 
> If the intent was to limit benefits under the New Charter to those who were injured/killed after the April 1 2006, then why was it necessary to include a clause in the New Charter under Section 6 which specifically denies Rehab benefits to those who served in Korea, or those who served before April 1, 1947?



All those that apply after that date are entitled to that, meaning veterans.  Unfortunately, your father passed on and because of that, is not able to apply.  That is were the crux of my confusion lies, which I will follow up afterwards.



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> I have to disagree.  If you read the legislation closely, only those veterans (and by extension, survivors) *who were injured or died directly as a result of military duty* are eligible for the benefits under the New Charter.  Take a look at the "Eligibility" clauses in the New Veterans Charter at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF, specifically Section 66(2).  Then take a look at Schedule 3 of the PSHCP Directive at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_862/pshcpd-drssfp/pshcpd-drssfp21_e.asp, specifically where it says
> Unfortunately, prescription coverage is only available from Blue Cross for those 65 and under.



Of course you would disagree.  As for the timeline of 65 and above, please provide links and official statements.  I find it hard to believe that in Canada, there are no provisions for the aged of 65 and above to be able to acquire medication under an insurance program.  Albeit, it may be at a reduced coverage, I am sure they would be approved.  As for survivors, what is your definition and extent to who would fall under this category, as my later post will reflect your answer.



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> I've already got two Members of Parliament that say VAC is reading something that just isn't there.  The answer is in the Charter - someone at VAC just needs to read the thing.



Peter Stoffer has been quite the champion of Veterans of our nation,  so you have a good man in your corner.  However, can you provide me information as to how he voted when Bill C-45 was introduced and then passed?

Maybe an answer on these few question could help me see the light, as I am not one to walk away from admitting my misjudgements.

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (25 Nov 2006)

It's probably easier to respond to your questions without the quotes.

Blue Cross coverage was pursued for my mother after my dad passed away - and it was at that point that she learned prescription coverage was not available, and still isn't.  She resides in Ontario, and using the website at https://www.useblue.com/asp/secure/bluechoice_quote.asp and inputting "single, age 73, Core Health benefits and Hospital coverage, and prescription" for the quote, the very first thing the form does is generate a popup that says "Unfortunately, only persons 64 and under are eligible for prescription drugs coverage".

With regards to VIP coverage, she was told by VAC that she was ineligible because my father was never in receipt of VIP benefits.

You stated "All those that apply after that date (1 Apr 06) are entitled to that, meaning veterans" - that's the line that VAC is taking, however that's not what C-45 says, and it isn't what the Treasury Board PSHCP Directive says.  C-45 says:



> A member, a veteran or a member’s or a veteran’s survivor may elect to participate in a group insurance program referred to in subsection (1) if they meet the prescribed eligibility requirements.



It makes no reference to the date the injury or death occurred.  However, the PSHCP Directive *does* refer to when veterans' survivors became eligible for PSHCP coverage:



> *The following persons, boards and agencies as amended from time to time by the Treasury Board of Canada were designated by Treasury Board of Canada, on the date shown, as being eligible to join the Plan:
> *
> (...)
> 
> ...



So we have C-45 stating that a veteran's survivor is eligible for PSHCP coverage.  Under the definition section, we have C-45 stating that a "veteran" is defined as a former member.  We have C-45 defining "member" as an officer or a non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces.  We have C-45 defining "Canadian Forces" as the armed forces referred to in section 14 of the National Defence Act, and includes any predecessor naval, army or air forces of Canada or Newfoundland.  We haven't had a predecessor naval, army or air force since before unification, which last time I checked was long before 1 Apr 06.

So following that logic, my mother is a survivor of a veteran who died as a result of military service, and most definitely should be covered under the PSHCP - and I'm sure there are quite a few others out there in Canada that are in the same boat.

And I don't believe I can make it any clearer than that.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

So let me get this,

You still have not defined for me what a survivor's criteria is.  This is important, in the fact you claim that all survivors must be allowed coverage by the Government via Veteran Affairs in perpetuity.

Who would be considered a survivor?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So let me get this,
> 
> You still have not defined for me what a survivor's criteria is.  This is important, in the fact you claim that all survivors must be allowed coverage by the Government via Veteran Affairs in perpetuity.
> 
> Who would be considered a survivor?



Sorry, missed one.  You did have the link to the Charter, though 

According to the New Charter (C-45)...



> “survivor”, in relation to a deceased member or a deceased veteran, means
> (a) their spouse who was, at the time of the member’s or veteran’s death, residing with the member or veteran; or
> (b) the person who was, at the time of the member’s or veteran’s death, the member’s or veteran’s common-law partner.



That doesn't sound particularly taxing on the system, does it?  Bear in mind that the remaining parts of the New Charter (Job Placement, Rehabilitation Services/Vocational Assistance/Financial Benefits, and Disability/Death/Detention benefits) either already existed under the Old Charter in some different form (VIP), or are so targeted in scope that the number of affected people would be low.  The only real *new* benefit is the Health Benefits provision, specifically the PSHCP.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

It does,

Your mother collects a monthly allowance.  This allowance under the old system was intended to offset any costs associated in the care of survivors.  Children up to the age of 18 are also given this allowance. Cost of care includes things as an insurance plan, medication etc.

The current plan offers a lump sum payment, rehab, and reintegration programs to allow the Veteran to obtain employment allowing them to be independent.  The family is offered PSHCP as they are not covered by a monthly allowance anymore.

With your mother collecting a monthly VAC survivor's pension, and asking to be covered would be considered double dipping.  If every Veteran, and Survivor under the old system were to do this, I am sorry it would be taxing to the system.

Maybe you should actually call an insurance privider rather than using the net, to get a proper answer.  Try more than one.

That is my point.

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> It does,
> 
> Your mother collects a monthly allowance.  This allowance under the old system was intended to offset any costs associated in the care of survivors.  Children up to the age of 18 are also given this allowance. Cost of care includes things as an insurance plan, medication etc.
> 
> The current plan offers a lump sum payment, rehab, and reintegration programs to allow the Veteran to obtain employment allowing them to be independent.  The family is offered PSHCP as they are not covered by a monthly allowance anymore.



We're not talking about injured members here.  We're talking about members who died as a result of military duty.

Today, a survivor receives the $250,000 lump sum as a Death Benefit under the New Charter.  The survivor is also eligible under the New Charter for the Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit ($1132.26 monthly non-taxable), which, when the survivor becomes the age of 65, is free from any income-related deduction.  The survivor is also eligible for PSHCP coverage.

Under the Old Charter, there was only the Survivor Benefit.  Oh, and VIP benefits, if the member was in receipt of VIP benefits at the time of death.  The member was the only person eligible for health care benefits under VIP.



> With your mother collecting a monthly VAC survivor's pension, and asking to be covered would be considered double dipping.  If every Veteran, and Survivor under the old system were to do this, I am sorry it would be taxing to the system.



It's not double dipping, as was shown above.



> Maybe you should actually call an insurance privider rather than using the net, to get a proper answer.  Try more than one.
> 
> That is my point.



We did call Blue Cross (and others) a long time ago to confirm her ineligibility for prescription coverage.  I only posted the link so you had something other than my word to go on.

As you can see, I've done my homework.  I've read the New Charter and the old benefits program, and know them inside and out.

If my father had passed away 4 1/2 years later than he did, my mother would've received $250,000, $1132/monthly non-taxable, and would've been handed the PSHCP on a silver platter.  As it stands now, my father spent 4 1/2 years less time in this world as a result of his military service, and my mother is only receiving the $1628 survivor benefit.

The Health Benefits provision under the New Charter, as it is drawn up, applies to the survivor of *every* veteran who died as a result of military service, not just those who died after 1 Apr 06.  The Health Benefit was included to bridge the gap that now exists between the old Charter and new Charter.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

> If my father had passed away 4 1/2 years later than he did, my mother would've received $250,000, $1132/monthly non-taxable, and would've been handed the PSHCP on a silver platter.  As it stands now, my father spent 4 1/2 years less time in this world as a result of his military service, and my mother is only receiving the $1628 survivor benefit.
> 
> The Health Benefits provision under the New Charter, as it is drawn up, applies to the survivor of every veteran who died as a result of military service, not just those who died after 1 Apr 06.  The Health Benefit was included to bridge the gap that now exists between the old Charter and new Charter.



This is rich, who told you this one?  I am sorry he would not have received a lump sum benefit, as he was awarded a pension in 2001 at 100%, do you not read what you type?  IF he had applied after April 1st, then he would have received a lump sum payment according to his ailment, not the full monty upon death?

What library did you do your homework in?  In fact, if your Mother made a claim under the new act for the death of your father and it was denied, why did you not appeal and then go to tribunal, or did you do that?

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Today, a survivor receives the $250,000 lump sum as a Death Benefit under the New Charter.  The survivor is also eligible under the New Charter for the Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit ($1132.26 monthly non-taxable), which, when the survivor becomes the age of 65, is free from any income-related deduction.  The survivor is also eligible for PSHCP coverage.



Could you clarify that?  I am under the impression right now that the $250,000 lump sum is it.....period!  No other monies after that.  A quarter million and a monthly non-taxible sum is even better than the Politicians have given themselves, and that sounds too good to be true to me.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> This is rich, who told you this one?  I am sorry he would not have received a lump sum benefit, as he was awarded a pension in 2001 at 100%, do you not read what you type?  IF he had applied after April 1st, then he would have received a lump sum payment according to his ailment, not the full monty upon death?



I did indeed read what I typed.

I've already told you that the time that elapsed between his diagnosis (and pension application date) and the date of his death was six weeks.  His pension did not get approved until 6 months after his death.  Under the new Charter, any injury that results in the death of the member is automatically assessed as a 100% disability - and forms the basis for the death benefit, $250,000.




> What library did you do your homework in?  In fact, if your Mother made a claim under the new act for the death of your father and it was denied, why did you not appeal and then go to tribunal, or did you do that?



Please go back and read the thread again, because you're asking questions to which I've already given you the answers.  He applied in Sep 01.  He died in Oct 01.  His pension was approved at a 100% rate in April 02.  The provisions of the New Charter clearly state that the survivor of any veteran who dies as a result of military service is eligible for PSHCP coverage.  The initial application for the pension was made under the old rules.  VAC is saying that because the PSHCP benefit is under the new Charter, it's not a benefit available to those under the old Charter, which is not what the new Charter says.  VAC says it's not open to appeal because it's an application for a benefit under the new Charter by a recipient under the old Charter.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

284_226,

Listen carefully.  This is the "NEW VETERANS" Charter.  If you had done the homework you claim to have done, such as the Self-Screening Tool you would have found that if your father were alive, he too would have been ineligible, and fallen under the old system!

To me I see an opportunist that has convinced his mother that there is more out there than there is.  Your father passed on over five years ago, and was still awarded a pension of 100 percent.  Your mother has received a monthly allowance since then based on this amount.  Now a new charter intended to aid and integrate "New Vet's" who have been injured, and medically released so that they may integrate back into society and provide for their family, and you both are trying to gain something from that.  

You personally have an agenda against the Government and VAC, and are using this to tie them up.  There I have thrown it on the table.  I am a Veteran that was wounded in action, and If my injuries will end up being my demise in the future, I too hope that my family will take an aggressive action as yours, to help my wife.  However, I do not see that you have used the system as it was designed.  As I asked did you appeal and go to a tribunal, or your mother?

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

I'm going to post the CANFORGEN once again,



> CANFORGEN 031/06 ADM(HR-MIL) 013 211025Z FEB 06
> APPLICATIONS FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE PENSION ACT AND THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> ...



This has been addressed in this forum before, and the "news" that pers who are collecting monthly cheques from VAC do not qualify for the lump sum etc of the NVC is not new.

Any pers/survivors who filed claims on or before 31 Mar 06, are handled under the Pension Act. 

Any pers/survivors who file claims after the coming into force date of 01 Apr 06, of the New Veterans Charter (NVC) are handled quite separately under the NVC.

So you qualify for treatment under one or the other, dependant upon the date the application was made. 

Veterans/Survivors who were in receipt of Pension Act benefits upon the enaction of the NVC, do not qualify to collect additional lump sump payments under the NVC.

Veterans/Survivors who apply after CIF date of NVC, will receive the benefits laid out under it's legislation and like-wise, are not entitled to collect any monthly awards/payments that fall under the auspices of the Pension Act.

You get one or the other....not both. 

Can we lock this up now mods? It's been beat to death.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Could you clarify that?  I am under the impression right now that the $250,000 lump sum is it.....period!  No other monies after that.  A quarter million and a monthly non-taxible sum is even better than the Politicians have given themselves, and that sounds too good to be true to me.



It's in the new Charter - http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF.

$250,000 is the Death benefit.



> 28. The Minister may, on application made within the prescribed time, pay a Canadian Forces income support benefit to a veteran’s survivor if the veteran was in receipt of that benefit at the time of their death and if
> 
> (a) the veteran dies as the result of an injury or a disease other than an injury or a disease described in paragraph 29(a);
> (b) the survivor meets the prescribed employment-related criteria; and
> (c) in the month in which the application is made, a calculation made under subsection 37(1) in respect of the survivor would result in an amount greater than zero.



So if a member is in receipt of an Income Support benefit at the time of their death, and but dies from a non-service related illness or disease, the survivor is eligible for Income Support.  In this case, benefits are income-tested.  Of course, they won't have received the $250,000 death benefit in this case.



> 29. The Minister may, on application, pay a Canadian Forces income support benefit to a member’s or a veteran’s survivor if
> 
> (a) the member or veteran dies as a result of
> (i) a service-related injury or disease, or
> ...



So, the injury or disease is service-related, or non-service-related but aggravated by service, then the Income Support benefit is payable if the member was 65 or older at the time of death, and is not income-tested or taxable.  That's what I was getting at with the scenario involving my parents.  If the same scenario had unfolded 4 1/2 years later - after 1 Apr 06 - instead of receiving the Survivor benefit under the old Charter, she would have received the Death Benefit and the Income Support benefit, because my father would have been over 65 years of age at the time.

The survivor of a member who dies now (under the new Charter) may also be eligible for Earnings Loss Benefit, subject to income-testing  payable until the member would have been age 65.

As an aside, the Death Benefit wording is one of the flaws in the new Charter.  If a member is critically injured today, but lives for more than 30 days after the injury and then dies, the death benefit isn't payable - the disability amount is.


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

No.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> 284_226,
> 
> Listen carefully.  This is the "NEW VETERANS" Charter.  If you had done the homework you claim to have done, such as the Self-Screening Tool you would have found that if your father were alive, he too would have been ineligible, and fallen under the old system!



Now hold on a minute here.  It's interesting that you mention the self-screening tool.  Go to it now - it's at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/client_screening.

Enter "I am a spouse/common-law partner, survivor or dependent child of any of the above persons." at Step 1.

It should tell you "Spouses/common-law partners, survivors and dependent children of a CF Member/Veteran may also qualify for the programs and services available through the New Veterans Charter."



> To me I see an opportunist that has convinced his mother that there is more out there than there is.  Your father passed on over five years ago, and was still awarded a pension of 100 percent.  Your mother has received a monthly allowance since then based on this amount.  Now a new charter intended to aid and integrate "New Vet's" who have been injured, and medically released so that they may integrate back into society and provide for their family, and you both are trying to gain something from that.
> 
> You personally have an agenda against the Government and VAC, and are using this to tie them up.  There I have thrown it on the table.  I am a Veteran that was wounded in action, and If my injuries will end up being my demise in the future, I too hope that my family will take an aggressive action as yours, to help my wife.  However, I do not see that you have used the system as it was designed.  As I asked did you appeal and go to a tribunal, or your mother?



And as I told you, VAC says it's not open to appeal because it's an application for a benefit under the new Charter by a recipient under the old Charter.

As to the rest of your accusations, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> It's in the new Charter - http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF.


No actually it isn't. That's your interpretation of it.

Your mother was in receipt of benefits under the Pension Act on 01 Apr 06, therefore she is entitled to the death/survivor benefits that are applicable to the Pension Act.

My grandfather (a WWII Vet), on the other hand, has never applied for any benefits relating to his service, but just recently did so. Because he has done this since April 01 2006,  he and my grandmother therefore fall under the auspices of the NVC, they will not be receiving any monthly cheques.


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Enter "I am a spouse/common-law partner, survivor or dependent child of any of the above persons." at Step 1.



May be eligible....or did you miss that part?

It has been laid out for you. The may be eligible depends upon whether or not you were already bering handled under the auspices of the Pension Act (which your mother is) or whether you are a new applicant since the coming into force of the NVC.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> I'm going to post the CANFORGEN once again,



Thank you for posting something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.




> Veterans/Survivors who apply after CIF date of NVC, will receive the benefits laid out under it's legislation and like-wise, are not entitled to collect any monthly awards/payments that fall under the auspices of the Pension Act.
> 
> You get one or the other....not both.



That is NOT what the NVC says.  If you've been reading the intricacies of the legislation as I've been pointing it out, you'd see that there are benefits under the NVC that are CLEARLY applicable to those who were injured or died prior to 1 Apr 06.



> Can we lock this up now mods? It's been beat to death.



If you don't like what you're reading, ignore it.  It doesn't make what I'm saying wrong.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

> As to the rest of your accusations, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.



Oh quelle surprise....

I call 'em as I see them.  You are tieing up the system period.  There have been numerous attempts to show you the err of your ways, however with your anger towards the system you are using this as a means of getting back at them.  I am sure you would _not_ benefit in any way, would you now?

dileas

tess


----------



## Trinity (26 Nov 2006)

OK

So what we have here is ONE side  saying YES.
The other side saying No.

Neither side agrees with each others arguments.
No one is going to capitulate on their arguments here 
(although after reading I know which side I think is correct)

284_226  Do whatever you feel is best.  Good luck.
I hope you can get benefits.

This really deserves a lock.  I think the only thing its tying up... as tess keeps saying

its tying up bandwidth


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> OK
> 
> So what we have here is ONE side  saying YES.
> The other side saying No.
> ...



oh padre do tell, do tell

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Thank you for posting something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.


Of course it must be, because it specifically mentions the two acts and eligibility based on your date of application, but then again, it doesn't back up your argument so of course you think it's irrelevant. 



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> That is NOT what the NVC says.  If you've been reading the intricacies of the legislation as I've been pointing it out, you'd see that there are benefits under the NVC that are CLEARLY applicable to those who were injured or died prior to 1 Apr 06.
> If you don't like what you're reading, ignore it.  It doesn't make what I'm saying wrong.


Again, you are wrong. You just don't like what you are reading and what you are being told. 

Yes it does mention service prior to the CIF date, that would be in reference to past serving members such as my grandfather / his survivor who had never applied prior to 01 Apr, but are now only doing so.

By your argument all who collect the lump sum under the NVC should also be eligible to collect monthly benefits under the Pension Act, not the case.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> No actually it isn't. That's your interpretation of it.



It's not interpretation, it's right there in black and white.



> Your mother was in receipt of benefits under the Pension Act on 01 Apr 06, therefore she is entitled to the death/survivor benefits that are applicable to the Pension Act.



Answer me two questions:

Show me, precisely, where it says on the page at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF that none of the content of the Act applies to members injured/died prior to 1 Apr 06.

Explain to me why they bothered to include a clause at Section 6 which specifically excludes service prior to 1 Apr 1947 or during Korea from eligibility for Rehab services.  Korea and pre-1947 service would be before 1 Apr 06, would it not?



> My grandfather (a WWII Vet), on the other hand, has never applied for any benefits relating to his service, but just recently did so. Because he has done this since April 01 2006,  he and my grandmother therefore fall under the auspices of the NVC, they will not be receiving any monthly cheques.



Irrelevant.  It's quite clear that applications made after 1 Apr 06 are dealt with under the new Charter.


----------



## Trinity (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> oh padre do tell, do tell



Sorry tess.

A chaplain doesn't take sides, but walks with each individual member
in their journey in their beliefs and understandings.  My job isn't to change
their mind but to simply be there.  ;D


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Oh quelle surprise....
> 
> I call 'em as I see them.  You are tieing up the system period.  There have been numerous attempts to show you the err of your ways, however with your anger towards the system you are using this as a means of getting back at them.  I am sure you would _not_ benefit in any way, would you now?



This oughta be good - do please explain to me how _I_ could possibly benefit from getting PSHCP coverage for my 73 year old mother.


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> It's not interpretation, it's right there in black and white.


And you can't see it for the paper it's written on.


			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Answer me two questions:
> 
> Show me, precisely, where it says on the page at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/381/Government/C-45/C-45_4/C-45_4.PDF that none of the content of the Act applies to members injured/died prior to 1 Apr 06.
> 
> ...



I already did, it's there for Veterans like my grandfather who are only now applying, and who neither applied for nor received anything prior to 01 Apr 06. And you know what, there's still alot of them out there that fall into that category. Unfortunatly, your mother is not one of them. (edited to add: or else the self-assement for elibility tool would not read "May" qualify; by your own reasoning it should read..."you all qualify").


----------



## Trinity (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Irrelevant.  It's quite clear that applications made after 1 Apr 06 are dealt with under the new Charter.



THEN WHY continue to argue about it.  Just go apply and continue to fight for 
the benefits you thing that are owed to you/your mom.

Trying to convince tess and vern isn't going to change anything...  literally NOTHING.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> This oughta be good - do please explain to me how _I_ could possibly benefit from getting PSHCP coverage for my 73 year old mother.





			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> If my father had passed away 4 1/2 years later than he did, my mother would've received $250,000, $1132/monthly non-taxable, and would've been handed the PSHCP on a silver platter.   As it stands now, my father spent 4 1/2 years less time in this world as a result of his military service, and my mother is only receiving the $1628 survivor benefit.
> 
> The Health Benefits provision under the New Charter, as it is drawn up, applies to the survivor of *every* veteran who died as a result of military service, not just those who died after 1 Apr 06.  The Health Benefit was included to bridge the gap that now exists between the old Charter and new Charter.



God forbid anything happeneing, but I am sure you _wouldn't _ get anything, eh?

dileas 

tess


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> THEN WHY continue to argue about it.  Just go apply and continue to fight for
> the benefits you thing that are owed to you/your mom.



Why?  Because vern is arguing apples and oranges.  This isn't about an application that was made after 1 Apr 06.  It's about legislation that came into effect on 1 Apr 06 that not only affects those injured or who die after the implementation date, but also affects those that were injured or died any time after Korea!

Geez, even TBS knows what's going on, because in their PSHCP Directive dated 1 Apr 06 (to coincide with the coming into force of the NVC), it CLEARLY states that survivors of veterans who died as a result of military service (with NO DATE CAVEATS) are eligible for PSHCP coverage.



> Trying to convince tess and vern isn't going to change anything...  literally NOTHING.



Then they may as well stop questioning what's right there in black and white.  Leave the thread open, and I'll be sure to provide updates as I forge forward through the bureaucratic red tape.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> God forbid anything happeneing, but I am sure you _wouldn't _ get anything, eh?



Now that was completely uncalled for.  At no point did I EVER claim that my mother should be eligible for the Death Benefit.  I used the example to illustrate precisely why the PSHCP eligibility was thrown into the NVC - because it narrows the gap between benefits of the new and old Charters.

Cheap shot, tess.


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Why?  Because vern is arguing apples and oranges.  This isn't about an application that was made after 1 Apr 06.  It's about legislation that came into effect on 1 Apr 06 that not only affects those injured or who die after the implementation date, but also affects those that were injured or died any time after Korea!


yeah OK.



> but also affects those that were injured or died any time after Korea


 who had not already been in receipt of claims under the Pension act. Ergo the "may be eligible for benefits clause."



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Geez, even TBS knows what's going on, because in their PSHCP Directive dated 1 Apr 06 (to coincide with the coming into force of the NVC), it CLEARLY states that survivors of veterans who died as a result of military service (with NO DATE CAVEATS) are eligible for PSHCP coverage.


provided those veterans were not already being handled under the Pension Act.


----------



## niner domestic (26 Nov 2006)

Point of clarification please? Did I understand you correctly that your mother is NOT eligible for drug coverage under the drug plan for seniors in Ontario?


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Point of clarification please? Did I understand you correctly that your mother is NOT eligible for drug coverage under the drug plan for seniors in Ontario?



She is covered by the Ontario Drug Benefit.  However, the list of medications covered is very limited, and there are several that would be covered under PSHCP that aren't under ODB (think cancer).  Additionally, if she had PSHCP coverage, she (like anyone else that has two coverages) can submit a claim for a hearing aid, for example, have the first $300 covered under one coverage, and submit the remainder to PSHCP up to the limits of coverage under PSHCP.


----------



## niner domestic (26 Nov 2006)

Why not just claim under med expenses in the Income Tax Act, the additional expenses and reduce her tax liability on pensions/income?


----------



## armyvern (26 Nov 2006)

ODB doesn't cover the cost of cancer drugs in Ontario because that role is fille by "Cancer Care Ontario" who provide the coverage for cancer-specific drugs.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> who had not already been in receipt of claims under the Pension act. Ergo the "may be eligible for benefits clause."



No, that's not what it means.  We were clearly told that if my father was still alive, he would be eligible for Rehab benefits under the New Charter, despite his pre-existing relationship under the old Charter and disability benefit.



			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> provided those veterans were not already being handled under the Pension Act.



The PSHCP Directive doesn't say that.  Show me where it says that.

Edited first paragraph to add "despite..."


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> ODB doesn't cover the cost of cancer drugs in Ontario because that role is fille by "Cancer Care Ontario" who provide the coverage for cancer-specific drugs.



Cancer Care Ontario only provides funding for intravenous drugs.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Why not just claim under med expenses in the Income Tax Act, the additional expenses and reduce her tax liability on pensions/income?



I'm not terribly familiar with her tax situation, so I can't tell you if she's doing that or not.  Don't you have to go over a certain amount of spending before being able to claim med expenses?


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

I must say, I'm a little surprised by a few of the responses in this thread.  At the beginning of the thread, I made it clear that this was about PSHCP coverage, and only PSHCP coverage.  The eligibility arises from the New Veterans Charter.  I've laid out my case, clarified points as necessary, and even managed to get a couple of Members of Parliament onboard.

It's been suggested that the NVC is only for those who were injured or died as a result of service-related causes after the implementation date of 1 April 06.  Well, none of the legislation or directives contain any reference to that.  Not one.  What they do make reference to is the date that PSHCP eligibility begins, and that date is 1 April 2006.  To me, that means that someone who fits into one of the eligibility groups gained eligibility to join PSHCP on that date, and has nothing to do with the date of the member's death.

Some have asked about whether coverage was obtained under Blue Cross, ODB, or other avenues.  I answered the questions, but that's not really what this is all about.  It's about gaining a benefit for all veterans/survivors, or more accurately, getting VAC to apply their legislation as it is written.  I seriously doubt that anyone retiring from the CF these days is refusing participation in PSHCP because they'll have company health coverage with their next employer.  It enhances the coverage, and the two plans complement each other - and any enhancement is worthwhile in my books. 

If there's anyone out there that thinks a 73 year old survivor of a former servicemember who died as a result of service-related exposure to asbestos isn't deserving of having VAC provide PSHCP coverage, then I'd like to hear about it.  If you're arguing with me, that's what you're saying.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I must say, I'm a little surprised by a few of the responses in this thread.  At the beginning of the thread, I made it clear that this was about PSHCP coverage, and only PSHCP coverage.  The eligibility arises from the New Veterans Charter.  I've laid out my case, clarified points as necessary, and even managed to get a couple of Members of Parliament onboard.
> ..............
> If there's anyone out there that thinks a 73 year old survivor of a former servicemember who died as a result of service-related exposure to asbestos isn't deserving of having VAC provide PSHCP coverage, then I'd like to hear about it.  If you're arguing with me, that's what you're saying.



As you are more or less 'demanding' these entitlements, I have a question for you.  As you have pointed out, members now retiring are not likely to refuse "participation in PSHCP", I would also like to point out to you that they will have elected to continue to pay contributions towards PSHCP.  That is quite different from someone who has not paid a cent towards these benefits.

If you do not elect to participate in PSHCP on Release, you have a one year period of grace, after which you can no longer apply to participate in the plan should you change your mind.  

Now you want someone who has never paid into the plan to receive benefits.  Do you see where you are wrong yet?


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2006)

> At the beginning of the thread, I made it clear that this was about PSHCP coverage, and only PSHCP coverage.  The eligibility arises from the New Veterans Charter.  I've laid out my case, clarified points as necessary, and even managed to get a couple of Members of Parliament onboard.



So what is it you want of this site? You've made your position known.

I think if this site is going to be nothing more than a venue to pursue your own cause, then you need to go away (voluntarily or otherwise) and create your own site on which to wage war on VAC or whomever. 

Note to all - this thread is close to being locked.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As you are more or less 'demanding' these entitlements, I have a question for you.  As you have pointed out, members now retiring are not likely to refuse "participation in PSHCP", I would also like to point out to you that they will have elected to continue to pay contributions towards PSHCP.  That is quite different from someone who has not paid a cent towards these benefits.



So, what you're saying is that the survivor of someone who dies as a result of military service today, who is eligible for PSHCP coverage and has never paid a cent into it, shouldn't be?  They do deduct premiums from monthly pension payments, you know.



> If you do not elect to participate in PSHCP on Release, you have a one year period of grace, after which you can no longer apply to participate in the plan should you change your mind.



Which is irrelevant, really.  The benefit is there, you've chosen to opt out of it. 



> Now you want someone who has never paid into the plan to receive benefits.  Do you see where you are wrong yet?



Any of the spouses of the servicemembers who have been killed in Afghanistan since 1 April 2006 are clearly eligible for PSHCP coverage, according to VAC, and I strongly suspect none of them have ever paid into it.  Are you really saying that's wrong?


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> So what is it you want of this site? You've made your position known.
> 
> I think if this site is going to be nothing more than a venue to pursue your own cause, then you need to go away (voluntarily or otherwise) and create your own site on which to wage war on VAC or whomever.
> 
> Note to all - this thread is close to being locked.



So discussion of an issue related to veteran's benefits is over the line for this forum?  Are you saying that the use of this forum to raise awareness of veterans issues, in the hopes that perhaps others in the same situation might be able to bring about change (or follow existing policy properly, for that matter), is above the purview of this forum?

It's not my cause.  If my mother were the only person in Canada who appears to be eligible for PSHCP coverage, but is being denied by VAC, then you could say it's my cause.  It's not my cause.  I'd venture a guess and say there are many veterans and survivors in exactly the same situation - who should be eligible for coverage but are not.  Some of them might even be on this forum.  I'd say most aren't even aware.

So, lock it if you must, but be sure you're locking it for the right reason.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> So, what you're saying is that the survivor of someone who dies as a result of military service today, who is eligible for PSHCP coverage and has never paid a cent into it, shouldn't be?


What kind of idiotic comment is this?  They are eligible because they have paid into the plan.  Where have you been hiding? 



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> They do deduct premiums from monthly pension payments, you know.


Yes, we all know that.  Does your mother (or father's pension) pay these same premiums?



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Which is irrelevant, really.  The benefit is there, you've chosen to opt out of it.


  
It is relevant to current plan holders.  As your father was not a plan contributer, why do you expect benefits?



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Any of the spouses of the servicemembers who have been killed in Afghanistan since 1 April 2006 are clearly eligible for PSHCP coverage, according to VAC, and I strongly suspect none of them have ever paid into it.  Are you really saying that's wrong?



Don't be so assine.  The spouse is covered under this plan.  Again, where have you been?  Obviously you really don't know anything about the PSHCP and are trying to get a free ride.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2006)

> but be sure you're locking it for the right reason



That's between myself and the owner of the site.



> discussion of an issue



You're not discussing, you're obsessing/ranting/lecturing



> use of this forum to raise awareness of veterans issues,



There are many on these means that are genuinely interested and knowledgeable in Veteran's Issues, and these issues are indeed important to many members. This is, however, Army.ca not Veterans.ca  If this issue is as important as you say, and you are as passionate as you say, I'd be interested in seeing the website that you created to specifically educate the masses, as you are trying to do here. Certainly, for such an important issue, you have been willing to invest your own time and financing in a website for which this cause is the primary goal - as opposed to this site... As you are aware, this site is paid for and operated by someone else, and although some discussion on Veteran's Affairs is welcome, I don't think that it was the intent of the owner to make it a grand stand for an individual that seems to believe that the process is flawed, and seems unwilling or uninterested to discuss much else.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What kind of idiot are you?  They are eligible because they have paid into the plan.  Where have you been hiding?



The survivor hasn't paid into the plan, George.  The survivor.



> Yes, we all know that.  Does your mother pay these same premiums?



If VAC followed their own piece of legislation, I'm sure they would deduct premiums from her monthly pension payments.
  


> It is relevant to current plan holders.  As your father was not a plan contributer, why do you expect benefits?



What are you talking about?  Participants in the plan can start submitting claims right after they become eligible.  You don't have to pay into it for umpteen years before you can start claiming on it, right?



> Don't be so assine.  The spouse is covered under this plan.  Again, where have you been?  Obviously you really don't know anything about the PSHCP and are trying to get a free ride.



Wrong.  Under the old Charter, if the member dies, eligibility for spouse and dependants ceases.  The only way a spouse or survivor could become eligible themselves was to be in receipt of an ongoing recognized survivor's or children's benefit.  (That's right out of my PSHCP handbook dated 1 Jul 2001).  Under the new Charter, eligibility for the PSHCP is guaranteed by the Charter.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> What are you talking about?  Participants in the plan can start submitting claims right after they become eligible.  You don't have to pay into it for umpteen years before you can start claiming on it, right?



So are you saying you mother (or your father's pension) contributes to the plan?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> The survivor hasn't paid into the plan, George.  The survivor.


Again, an asinine comment.  The survivor/dependant has paid into the plan via the spouses deductions.



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> If VAC followed their own piece of legislation, I'm sure they would deduct premiums from her monthly pension payments.


She would have had to made the application to do so, as I am positive it would not be an automatic change to an existing policy. 



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Wrong.  Under the old Charter, if the member dies, eligibility for spouse and dependants ceases.  The only way a spouse or survivor could become eligible themselves was to be in receipt of an ongoing recognized survivor's or children's benefit.  (That's right out of my PSHCP handbook dated 1 Jul 2001).  Under the new Charter, eligibility for the PSHCP is guaranteed by the Charter.



So.  There is your answer.  I would hope that you read the latest version of the PSHCP handbook that has come out with policy changes, rather than one that is six years old and several versions out of date.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So are you saying you mother (or your father's pension) contributes to the plan?



My father doesn't get a pension.  He's dead.  My mother gets a Survivor's pension, out of which she would have PSHCP premiums deducted if she were allowed to become a participant like the legislation says she's supposed to.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Again, an asinine comment.  The survivor/dependant has paid into the plan via the spouses deductions.



What??  I pay into PSHCP right now, and I pay the premium for my wife's coverage.  She makes no contributions whatsoever.  If I were to die, under the old Charter, she would NOT automatically become a participant.



> She would have had to made the application to do so, as I am positive it would not be an automatic change to an existing policy.



She did apply, and was denied, with the reason stated as being the date of my father's death being before 1 Apr 06, the implementation date of the Charter.  This is wrong, as the Charter makes no such stipulation.



> So.  There is your answer.  I would hope that you read the latest version of the PSHCP handbook that has come out with policy changes, rather than one that is six years old and several versions out of date.



Stick with me here.  I read it out of an old book deliberately so that you would know the information about eligibility was about the OLD Charter and not the new one.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> You're not discussing, you're obsessing/ranting/lecturing



Yes, I'm discussing.  Actually, I'm repeating myself because people keep asking questions I've already answered, but that's besides the point.  People are bringing up points that are patently wrong, in an attempt to find some kind of flaw in legislation that's right there in black and white, that says survivors of members who die as a result of military service are eligible for participation in the PSHCP.



> There are many on these means that are genuinely interested and knowledgeable in Veteran's Issues, and these issues are indeed important to many members. This is, however, Army.ca not Veterans.ca



Are there not a significant number of members here who are veterans?  If I'm reading right, you're a veteran.  'Nuff said.



> If this issue is as important as you say, and you are as passionate as you say, I'd be interested in seeing the website that you created to specifically educate the masses, as you are trying to do here. Certainly, for such an important issue, you have been willing to invest your own time and financing in a website for which this cause is the primary goal - as opposed to this site...



I'm not in the website business.  I'd have thought this would have been an excellent avenue for communication with persons/members who are in a similar situation, but it doesn't appear to be so.



> As you are aware, this site is paid for and operated by someone else, and although some discussion on Veteran's Affairs is welcome, I don't think that it was the intent of the owner to make it a grand stand for an individual that seems to believe that the process is flawed, and seems unwilling or uninterested to discuss much else.



Come on, that's a perfect straw man.  The cost and operation aren't really the issues here, are they?  This forum is littered with other individuals who've raised valid concerns, only to piled on by certain groups of people who never seem to be wrong.  I come in with a valid concern, on topic to the forum, clearly state my points, and when people fire erroneous information back at me, I'm supposed to sit back and go "Hmm...ok"?  If you've got a point to make, back it up with fact.  I have.


----------



## Trinity (26 Nov 2006)

Considering no one decide to listen to my post a few pages
back saying... certain individuals will not listen to other individuals,

HOW ABOUT we use of one our plentiful lawyers that resides on 
the site to make a professional opinion......


NINER  ;D

What is your take off of this?

EDIT.. not to insult anyone... really.  Just.. it seem IMO that
the only way to end this is someone who can weed through this
and find an answer..


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Considering no one decide to listen to my post a few pages
> back saying... certain individuals will not listen to other individuals,



Oh, I'm listening...how else could I be able to point out the errors in George's points?  



> HOW ABOUT we use of one our plentiful lawyers that resides on
> the site to make a professional opinion......
> 
> 
> ...



I'd be interested to hear as well.

Edit:  As a matter of fact, I'm prepared to "wait out" to see if someone can shed light on this.  There ya go


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm listening...how else could I be able to point out the errors in George's points?



How very interesting.

You haven't pointed out much to me, except your incessant manner.  I could continue to ask you questions, but it is like asking a child questions one little tidbit at a time.  You are very tiring.  

If your mother has been denied benefits in the new program because she does not qualify, accept the fact.  If your mother is already receiving benefits from the old plan, be happy with that and don't try to 'double dip'.  You have the PSHCP documents and still insist on warping the fine print to suit your personal desires.  I really don't care to listen to your prattle any more.

Good luck in your future endeavors.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If your mother has been denied benefits in the new program because she does not qualify, accept the fact.



Because VAC, a bureaucratic organization, has never been wrong before, right?



> Good luck in your future endeavors.



Thanks.


----------



## HItorMiss (26 Nov 2006)

At least if she gets a pension under the old system she is one better then me.. I don't qualify for my pension till I am considered disabled by a doctor and that will take another year and half at least to see what returns to me and what doesn't. Son I think you should feel lucky your mother gets anything, personally I am of a firm belief that pensions end with the person who qualified.

all IMO of course


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> At least if she gets a pension under the old system she is one better then me.. I don't qualify for my pension till I am considered disabled by a doctor and that will take another year and half at least to see what returns to me and what doesn't.



I'm sorry to hear that.  In this specific case, though - it's hard to argue that death is anything but a 100% disability, right?



> Son I think you should feel lucky your mother gets anything, personally I am of a firm belief that pensions end with the person who qualified.



So, assuming you're married, when you finally do become eligible for a pension, you'll be sending the Spousal amount back, right?  

No offence intended - just illustrating a point.  Hope things work out for you sooner than later, and without the hassle we had to go through.


----------



## HItorMiss (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry to hear that.  In this specific case, though - it's hard to argue that death is anything but a 100% disability, right?



No death is death and is covered by other functions in the CF for those serving. However dying does not then mean that your mother is entitled to 100% disabilty stauts just cause so and so is now dead. 




			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> So, assuming you're married, when you finally do become eligible for a pension, you'll be sending the Spousal amount back, right?



You missed my point. The Canadian government is incredibly generous to let anyone other then the disabled person recieve penion benifits. As in I should recieve X amount and thats it just for my injuries, no spousal benifits nothing for my daughter when I die. Just stuff for me until I die.



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> No offence intended - just illustrating a point.  Hope things work out for you sooner than later, and without the hassle we had to go through.



Trust me lad you couldn't insult me on my worst day. I really could careless in the in end. Illustrate your point all you like but the letter of the law as the Lawyers who work for VAC say's your wrong and I'm pretty sure they are confident enough to go to court over it.

Things worked out for me because I made them work out, I didn't sit on a website and whine, I addressed to problem head on and took my own time and alot of my own effort to achieve my goals.


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> No death is death and is covered by other functions in the CF for those serving. However dying does not then mean that your mother is entitled to 100% disabilty stauts just cause so and so is now dead.



Well, VAC (and umpteen civilian LTD plans) disagree with you.  Spousal amounts are par for the course.



> You missed my point. The Canadian government is incredibly generous to let anyone other then the disabled person recieve penion benifits. As in I should recieve X amount and thats it just for my injuries, no spousal benifits nothing for my daughter when I die. Just stuff for me until I die.



That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.  Not sure many would agree with you though.



> Trust me lad you couldn't insult me on my worst day. I really could careless in the in end. Illustrate your point all you like but the letter of the law as the Lawyers who work for VAC say's your wrong and I'm pretty sure they are confident enough to go to court over it.



And they may have to do just that.  The unfortunate part is, up until now, both Peter Stoffer and I have been dealing with the Client Services department at VAC.  Even he's frustrated with attempts to communicate with anyone higher than low-level management.  We're dealing with people who work from scripts.  It'd be great if we could communicate with somebody higher, perhaps in their legal department, but they just aren't set up that way.  That's why I was advised to write the Minister of Veterans Affairs directly.



> Things worked out for me because I made them work out, I didn't sit on a website and whine, I addressed to problem head on and took my own time and alot of my own effort to achieve my goals.



Oh, rest assured that the letter to the Ministers of Veterans Affairs and DND are already on their way in the mail.  And I will win.

BTW, maybe it's just me, but I do take it as odd that someone who is only 28 is calling me "son" and "lad" at the age of 40.  You a Newf?


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Now that was completely uncalled for.  At no point did I EVER claim that my mother should be eligible for the Death Benefit.  I used the example to illustrate precisely why the PSHCP eligibility was thrown into the NVC - because it narrows the gap between benefits of the new and old Charters.
> 
> Cheap shot, tess.





			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> If my father had passed away 4 1/2 years later than he did, my mother would've received $250,000, $1132/monthly non-taxable, and would've been handed the PSHCP on a silver platter.   As it stands now, my father spent 4 1/2 years less time in this world as a result of his military service, and my mother is only receiving the $1628 survivor benefit.
> 
> The Health Benefits provision under the New Charter, as it is drawn up, applies to the survivor of *every* veteran who died as a result of military service, not just those who died after 1 Apr 06.  The Health Benefit was included to bridge the gap that now exists between the old Charter and new Charter.






			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Oh, rest assured that the letter to the Ministers of Veterans Affairs and DND are already on their way in the mail.  And I will win.
> 
> BTW, maybe it's just me, but I do take it as odd that someone who is only 28 is calling me "son" and "lad" at the age of 40.  You a Newf?



Nope not a cheap shot, in fact a very expensive one.

Your Honor I rest my case.

You Lad, are a sorry example of what a Canadian is.  To speak to two injured Veterans that have to suffer through delays because of the likes of you.  For shame, and you get the hopes up of your dear mother.

Aren't your stones bothering you yet?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Nope not a cheap shot, in fact a very expensive one.
> 
> Your Honor I rest my case.
> 
> You Lad, are a sorry example of what a Canadian is.



Oh, spare me.  I've served 21 years and counting, and have forgotten more than many will ever know about what it is to be a Canadian.



> To speak to two injured Veterans that have to suffer through delays because of the likes of you.



I had no idea telling two injured veterans that I think they're wrong about something constituted abusive behaviour.



> For shame, and you get the hopes up of your dear mother.



She's quite fine with what I'm doing.  She's not the type to fight, and probably wouldn't even have appealed the VAC decision about the disability pension without me helping her out.



> Aren't your stones bothering you yet?



No, but feel free to ask me in 15 years or so when I retire from the CF.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

> She's not the type to fight, and probably wouldn't even have appealed the VAC decision about the disability pension without me helping her out.



Then answer me that, as  you still have not.  Has your mother appealed the decision and gone to a tribunal?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Then answer me that, as  you still have not.  Has your mother appealed the decision and gone to a tribunal?



I've answered you twice, actually.

VAC will not allow an appeal because there's nothing TO appeal.  I asked about appealing it and got gobbledegook about it not being a case of being denied, it's that she's ineligible in their thinking.  If the appeal avenue was available, I'd take it.  VAC told me to contact my MP if I wanted it looked into further.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I've answered you twice, actually.
> 
> VAC will not allow an appeal because there's nothing TO appeal.  I asked about appealing it and got gobbledegook about it not being a case of being denied, it's that she's ineligible in their thinking.  If the appeal avenue was available, I'd take it.  VAC told me to contact my MP if I wanted it looked into further.



Six Pages.   Six Pages.   :


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

> VAC will not allow an appeal because there's nothing TO appeal.



Exactly

STOP MAKING IT HARD FOR US NEW VETERANS BY BOGGIN' UP THE SYTEM.

YOUR MOTHER COLLECTS A SUBSTANIONAL PENSION FROM VAC, USE THAT TO SUPPORT HER!!!


there I have said it.

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (26 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Exactly
> 
> STOP MAKING IT HARD FOR US NEW VETERANS BY BOGGIN' UP THE SYTEM.
> 
> ...



And a darn fine example of snipping the beejeesus out of context it was.

Hey, that's great how you want to shove our Korea vets to the back of the bus.  Lovely.  Just lovely.

It'll please you to no end that there'll be very few of them left within 10 years, so you can have the system all to yourself.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

The system was there for them, your mother experienced that as a survivor.

If you saw that there was wrong in the service, your mother had 5 years to appeal.

Nice job tough guy, I see you trying to wedge yourself into OUR benefits, those that have suffered in the line of duty.  Maybe if you experineced that you would understand, considering you have had 21 years to do that.

dileas

tess


----------



## HItorMiss (26 Nov 2006)

Therein lies the rub, your not fighting for a Korea vet your fighting for the daughter of one, now I am not going to say she isn't entitled to something, but she is already getting something. Where as there are Korea vets genuinely trying to get a tribunal to re asses their pension and the system as Tess pointed out is bogged down with trivial case's that don't need to be top priority. And yes I am saying your case is not top priority. Those WWII/ Korea Vet's should be, Guys like Tess should be and now that we have 250+ wounded they should be.

 IMO of course


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Hey, that's great how you want to shove our Korea vets to the back of the bus.  Lovely.  Just lovely.
> 
> It'll please you to no end that there'll be very few of them left within 10 years, so you can have the system all to yourself.



Nice,

So your mission is to protect the Korean Veteran now....Please crusader, stop before you hit a speed bump.  My mission is to stop the likes of you, on behalf of those from the Korean war, First World war, Second World war, every Godamn peacekeeping mission, and Afghanistan, from the likes of an Opportunist like you.

That is what I am fighting for.

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (27 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> If you saw that there was wrong in the service, your mother had 5 years to appeal.



See?  You're not reading what's being put in front of you.  I told you that my mother was granted the pension 5 years ago.  What she *can't* appeal is the ruling of ineligibility for PSHCP benefits that came about from a piece of legislation that only came into force 8 months ago.



> Nice job tough guy, I see you trying to wedge yourself into OUR benefits, those that have suffered in the line of duty.  Maybe if you experineced that you would understand, considering you have had 21 years to do that.



What on gawd's green earth are you going on about?


----------



## 284_226 (27 Nov 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Therein lies the rub, your not fighting for a Korea vet your fighting for the daughter of one, now I am not going to say she isn't entitled to something, but she is already getting something. Where as there are Korea vets genuinely trying to get a tribunal to re asses their pension and the system as Tess pointed out is bogged down with trivial case's that don't need to be top priority. And yes I am saying your case is not top priority. Those WWII/ Korea Vet's should be, Guys like Tess should be and now that we have 250+ wounded they should be.



Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.  When it's determined that military service put my father into the grave, and takes away the person that my mother was supposed to grow old together with, I have a serious problem when she's not getting every bit of support that VAC is supposed to be providing.  Don't complain to me - complain to VAC, complain to your MP, or complain to your dog.  As far as I'm concerned, any claim my mother raises is just as important as any other claim raised today.  Those WWII/Korea/etc. vets are still alive and are still able to enjoy life, albeit with a disability perhaps.  That's no more or less important than my mother, who lost her life partner and breadwinner because of a service-related condition.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So your mission is to protect the Korean Veteran now....Please crusader, stop before you hit a speed bump.  My mission is to stop the likes of you, on behalf of those from the Korean war, First World war, Second World war, every Godamn peacekeeping mission, and Afghanistan, from the likes of an Opportunist like you.



Opportunist?  Yeah, I'm getting a lot out of this.

Remind me what it is I'm getting in personal gain again?



> That is what I am fighting for.



You'll deny it, but when it comes down to it, you and I are fighting for exactly the same thing.  Sleep on that.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2006)

Public Service Health Care Plan.  A Plan to cover the health needs of Canada's Public Civil Servants.  Run by and administered by the Public Service.  DND and the CF, as well as the RCMP, only recently joined this plan.  This is not a DND plan.  It is not a Veteran's Affairs plan.  It is not a CF plan.  It is a plan for all of Canada's Federal Civil Servants.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Public Service Health Care Plan.  A Plan to cover the health needs of Canada's Public Civil Servants.  Run by and administered by the Public Service.  DND and the CF, as well as the RCMP, only recently joined this plan.  This is not a DND plan.  It is not a Veteran's Affairs plan.  It is not a CF plan.  It is a plan for all of Canada's Federal Civil Servants.



http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_862/pshcpd-drssfp/pshcpd-drssfp03_e.asp



> III – Pensioners
> 
> 1. Any person in receipt of an ongoing recognised pension, survivor's or children's benefit pursuant to an Act identified in Schedule IV, as amended from time to time by the Treasury Board of Canada, is eligible to join or to continue coverage under the PSHCP when their pension becomes payable (except those persons who immediately prior to retirement were employed by a non-participating organisation on or after the specified date as identified in Schedule II of this Plan Document).
> *2. Any individual who is a member of the VAC client group as defined in Schedule III is eligible to join the Plan.*



http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_862/pshcpd-drssfp/pshcpd-drssfp21_e.asp



> Schedule III - Designated Persons, Boards and Agencies
> 
> *The following persons*, boards and agencies as amended from time to time by the Treasury Board of Canada *were designated by Treasury Board of Canada, on the date shown, as being eligible to join the Plan:*
> 
> ...


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Nov 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> See?  You're not reading what's being put in front of you.  I told you that my mother was granted the pension 5 years ago.  What she *can't* appeal is the ruling of ineligibility for PSHCP benefits that came about from a piece of legislation that only came into force 8 months ago.



Do you even know how the process is done?  If she makes a new claim, based on what she she believes she deserves, then this will be looked at.   If denied she has the power to appeal.  Do you even know how the process works?  You really are out of control, and I feel for both MP's who have had to unfortunate pleasure of dealing with you, let alone VAC and any other Government body in your sights.



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> What on gawd's green earth are you going on about?





			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> And a darn fine example of snipping the beejeesus out of context it was.
> 
> Hey, that's great how you want to shove our Korea vets to the back of the bus.  Lovely.  Just lovely.
> 
> It'll please you to no end that there'll be very few of them left within 10 years, so you can have the system all to yourself.




I am sorry, but I will have to break the sites rules with this statement.  You Son, are a tool.  Plain and simple, a tool.  In fact I will call you a wedge the most basic of them all.  You are trying to "Wedge" yourself in anyway you can, into benefits not designed for your Mother.  Why, because of your own personal agendas.  You come here spewing your rhetoric, and when we try to offer our opinion and advice you attack us.

Go on and trundle off somewhere else with your crusade, and may you one day understand that you are hurting all of us Veterans with your agenda.  Don't sugar coat it with the fact your helping dear old mum, as it is plain why you want this to work in your her favour.  I should put you on ignore, as I have been advised, which may shut you  up.  However the part about me, that had to suffer with appeals due to delays brought by the likes of you, just won't allow me to let go.

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (27 Nov 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Do you even know how the process is done?  If she makes a new claim, based on what she she believes she deserves, then this will be looked at.   If denied she has the power to appeal.  Do you even know how the process works?  You really are out of control, and I feel for both MP's who have had to unfortunate pleasure of dealing with you, let alone VAC and any other Government body in your sights.



I'm quite conversant with how the process works.  After all, I did tell you that I was the one that assisted my father with the initial application, and assisted my mother with the appeal process when she was initially turned down.  I must've done a fairly good job of getting my point across, since they reversed their decision and went from "benefits denied" to "100% disability".

Now, let *me* explain how it works to YOU.  One makes a new claim if one believes their condition has worsened, or if they have a new condition exacerbated by a pensioned condition, causing additional hardship/pain/loss of mobility/etc.  Considering the claim was made by my father, do you honestly believe that we could successfully claim that he is any more *DEAD* than he is right now??  That, sir, is the explanation gave to me when we initially raised questions about PSHCP coverage in April 2006.  In THIS case, it is not a new CLAIM that is submitted, because there is no change in the member's health - he's still *DEAD*.  In this case, it is a mere application for PSHCP coverage that is submitted - the form at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/programs/ghi - and the result of that application was that she was deemed to be ineligible and there is no appeal process because there is no additional disability being claimed.  Even BPA says that's a fair assessment, and their job is appeals.  Got it?



> I am sorry, but I will have to break the sites rules with this statement.  You Son, are a tool.  Plain and simple, a tool.  In fact I will call you a wedge the most basic of them all.  You are trying to "Wedge" yourself in anyway you can, into benefits not designed for your Mother.  Why, because of your own personal agendas.  You come here spewing your rhetoric, and when we try to offer our opinion and advice you attack us.



I did NOT come here with any sort of agenda.  Any suggestion that there is some sort of hidden agenda in play is nothing short of a product of your overworked imagination.  Why else would you have gone to the lengths of making an accusation that I was ACTUALLY the fella from Gagetown that was released for kidney stones, and I was on some mad hunt for money?  I also *did not come here seeking your opinion or your advice* - I spent a great deal of time writing and re-writing my initial post so as to address the concerns you and the site owner raised.  I made it quite clear that I was only seeking to advise others who are in a similar position that they should take up the issue with their MP, because VAC's front line workers made it quite clear that they believed the eligibility criteria were interpreted properly and that the only people who could change that interpretation were those who drafted it - the committees and Members of Parliament.



> Go on and trundle off somewhere else with your crusade, and may you one day understand that you are hurting all of us Veterans with your agenda.  Don't sugar coat it with the fact your helping dear old mum, as it is plain why you want this to work in your her favour.  I should put you on ignore, as I have been advised, which may shut you  up.  However the part about me, that had to suffer with appeals due to delays brought by the likes of you, just won't allow me to let go.



What agenda?  Is getting VAC to properly interpret and apply their own piece of legislation an agenda?  You STILL insist that I'm getting something out of this - why don't you grow a pair and say what it is?  Do tell me what I could possibly gain from ensuring that a veteran's survivor gets a benefit that a recent change in legislation grants.

You're b*tching at the wrong person.  Don't take it out on me, and don't take it out on the members of this forum.  Your problem is with Veterans Affairs and insufficient staff in their offices to complete the workload presented to them.  Feel free to take it out on your MP.  But don't you DARE take aim at me for helping someone make a legitimate claim for a benefit that is available to them under VAC legislation.  I am sincerely sympathetic to any difficulties you're having with VAC as a result of your clearly service-related disability, as well as anyone else's - but your quarrel is not with me, it's with VAC and the people who write legislation in this country.

I strongly suggest you take the advice of whoever is advising you to engage your "ignore" button.  Evidently you have a problem with target identification.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Nov 2006)

284_226,

Is your mother receiving the benefits that were due to her effective the date of your father's death, in accordance with the program he contributed to while a serving member?


----------



## 284_226 (27 Nov 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> 284_226,
> 
> Is your mother receiving the benefits that were due to her effective the date of your father's death, in accordance with the program he contributed to while a serving member?



Yes; however, the question is an irrelevant one.  New programs are constantly being created, regardless of whatever federal department one is talking about.  When new programs are created, eligibility criteria are established.  If a given group of people are to be excluded, then it has to be stipulated in the legislation.

For example:  from http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=e_services/newapp


> The Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-Establishment and Compensation Act and accompanying Regulations are anticipated to come into force as early as April 1, 2006.
> 
> This legislation affects Canadian Forces members and Veterans who served after April 1, 1947 (except for Korean War service during the period July 5, 1950 to October 31, 1953 inclusive).



My father served from 1950 to 1955.  His disability pension (and consequently, my mother's Survivor Benefit) was indeed based on the Pension Act, and was based primarily (but not solely) on his Korean War service.  He did, however, have additional service beyond 27 July 1953, which was the end of the Korean War as specified by the Pension Act.  So, from the passage above, it's clear that the NVC also applies to him.  It is true that a disability pension was awarded under the Pension Act, and a Survivor Benefit was awarded under the Pension Act, but that there is also eligibility for any new programs under the NVC.  The "Health Benefits" provision is one of the new programs.  And, as I've already pointed out, at http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/programs/ghi, it states:



> Who can benefit from the health benefits program?
> You may qualify if you are a:
> 
> CF Veteran who has been approved for benefits under the Service Income Security Insurance Plan Long Term Disability (SISIP LTD) and you do not otherwise qualify for PSHCP;
> ...




So, as far as the NVC is concerned...

Member's service outside the Korean War exclusion dates?  Check.
Member's death was service-related?  Check.
Survivor does not otherwise qualify for PSHCP?  Check.

Listen, this discussion is obviously bothering some people more than it really should.  The fact of the matter is that there two possibilities in play here.  Either VAC intended to exclude anyone who was injured or died prior to the implementation date of the NVC from any benefits under the NVC - and produced a poorly worded piece of legislation to do it.  Or, VAC's intention was indeed to have the NVC apply to anyone who served after on or after 1 April 1947 (excluding Korea) as the above passage indicates, and is currently misinterpreting their own piece of legislation.

I'm prepared to shut the H-E double hockey sticks up about the whole thing until I hear from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, if everyone else is prepared to do the same.  The original intent of the post wasn't to generate discussion, it was to inform others that it certainly appeared that something was amiss at VAC, and that they might want to take steps about it.  If I'm wrong, I'll be quite happy to report back and eat a big honkin' serving of crow.  However, if I'm right, then someone owes me a flat of beer because a sizable group of people have been denied a benefit that they should have been eligible for.

Deal?


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Jan 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> I'm prepared to shut the H-E double hockey sticks up about the whole thing until I hear from the Minister of Veterans Affairs, if everyone else is prepared to do the same.  The original intent of the post wasn't to generate discussion, it was to inform others that it certainly appeared that something was amiss at VAC, and that they might want to take steps about it.  If I'm wrong, I'll be quite happy to report back and eat a big honkin' serving of crow.  However, if I'm right, then someone owes me a flat of beer because a sizable group of people have been denied a benefit that they should have been eligible for.
> 
> Deal?



Well it has been a substantial time since we last spoke on the subject, enough for the big red tape emitting machine to spew it's answers.  I have already drank the flat of beer, and the crow is in the pot.

How are things coming along?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (24 Jan 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Well it has been a substantial time since we last spoke on the subject, enough for the big red tape emitting machine to spew it's answers.  I have already drank the flat of beer, and the crow is in the pot.
> 
> How are things coming along?



Interesting you should ask.  Letters were sent to both the Minister of Veteran's Affairs and the Minister of National Defence.  I have to assume that Ministerial Inquiries were made within VAC, because a few weeks after the letters were sent, I received a phone call from a lawyer with Veterans Affairs.

I informed him of the details of the situation, and that we felt that there was nothing in the NVC that would remove eligibility for benefits (specifically the Health Care Benefit aka PSHCP) to members injured or killed prior to the implementation date of the NVC.  I also mentioned the several references within the NVC to eligibility of Korea vets and the April 1 1947 date.  His response was something to the effect of "Well, it just doesn't apply to them".  I replied "Could you tell me what section of the NVC states that?".

His response was "Hold on a sec...<3 or 4 minute pause>...umm...You're right.  Ummm...I think it might be in the Regulations".  I then asked him if the Regulations were available online.  He replied "No, not that I'm aware of...hold on a sec, I think I have a copy here...<sound of pages flipping>....Ohhhh.  I can't find them.  I'll take your name and number and see if I can get you a copy".  Haven't heard from him since.  (_note:  A lawyer for Veterans Affairs doesn't have a copy of their bread and butter legislation handy?  That'd be like a criminal lawyer that doesn't own a copy of the Criminal Code._)

Since then, the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation *Regulations* have appeared online at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cr/SOR-2006-50///en.

Hmmm...doesn't appear like there's anything in there that states members injured/killed prior to the implementation date aren't covered under the NVC, or that survivors of those veterans didn't become eligible for PSHCP as of the coming into force date of the legislation, but feel free to take a look yourself.  Remember, it was *never* my argument that the survivors would be eligible to "double dip" (ie. the death benefit) - the Health Benefits provision was a new benefit under the NVC, and it didn't exist under the old charter.

I'll wait a few more weeks and see if the Ministerial Inquiries turn up any responses, and then make a few phone calls and see if anyone knows if action is being taken on it.  If there's nothing being done on it, then I think I might take Peter Stoffer up on his offer of going to the media with it.  VAC seems to be remaining awfully silent on the subject.  Maybe they're waiting for the affected people to die off so the issue becomes moot.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jan 2007)

Good stuff,

And make sure you  relay the name of the lawyer, from VAC, that said you were correct, nothing better than that!

He could be brought up as a witness if you ever take this to court.

dileas

tess


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jan 2007)

Link was bad,

Did you mean this one?

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (30 Mar 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Link was bad,
> 
> Did you mean this one?



Sorry, didn't see this post until now - if you mean the link I posted to the NVC Regulations was bad, it still seems to be working...although your link gets you there as well.

Update:

I've received correspondence from both the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs.  Actually, I received an e-mail that looks like it was typed by the 7-year old son of the President of the Treasury Board, but at least it was a response.

Both responses toed the party line that, and I'll quote from both of the letters... "Effective April 1, 2006, the Treasury Board Secretariat extended eligibility to the PSHCP to a specified group of Veteran's Affairs Canada's clients.  Under this provision, only those survivors of Canadian Forces (CF) members or Veterans who died on or after April 1, 2006, are eligible for the Plan1 as part of the Department's2 client group".

1.  PSHCP
2.  Department of Veterans Affairs

Now, consider that I've posted the links to the PSHCP Directive dated 1 April 2006, which contains a section entitled "Eligibility", and further refers to members of the VAC client group as defined at Schedule III.  Schedule III states that  "The following persons ... were designated by Treasury Board of Canada, on the date shown, as being eligible to join the Plan", and goes on to state that on 1 April 2006, the following client group became eligible - "Survivors of veterans and members of the Canadian Forces who have died as a result of military service when the survivors do not otherwise have PSHCP eligibility".

Does anyone see anything here that refers to the date of death of the member?  I sure don't.  There's nothing in the NVC or the Regulations that form part of the NVC, either.

Not one, but *two* federal departments completely _*ignored*_ my very specifically worded request for them to clearly describe where in the NVC or TBS Directive it was stated that members/veterans who died prior to April 1, 2006 were excluded from eligibility in the PSHCP.

So, we're going to the media.  Peter Stoffer is absolutely floored at this one...and has again offered his help.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2007)

I agree with you. I could not find it in the legislation, but possibly it is in their equivalent of CFAO/DAOD's. That means someone has taken the legislation, interrupted the meaning, and amplified the legislation into e.g. CFAO/DAOD's. Sounds like they are going from the effective date of the legislation, with no retroactivity.


----------



## 284_226 (30 Mar 2007)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I agree with you. I could not find it in the legislation, but possibly it is in their equivalent of CFAO/DAOD's. That means someone has taken the legislation, interrupted the meaning, and amplified the legislation into e.g. CFAO/DAOD's. Sounds like they are going from the effective date of the legislation, with no retroactivity.



It's kind of interesting, actually.  Retroactivity doesn't matter, the way they've worded it.  They've stated that effective 1 April 2006, the group of people described at Schedule III became eligible for PSHCP.  They didn't include any qualifying statements that would restrict eligibility, such as "Only survivors of veterans who died on or after 1 April 2006 are eligible for PSHCP coverage".  The way it's worded, if you're a survivor of a CF member or Veteran who died as a result of a service-related condition, you became eligible for PSHCP coverage effective 1 April 2006 - regardless of the date of death of the member.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (22 Apr 2007)

After reading the long thread. I think this boils down to an issue of "What is the spirit of the legislation and what was the intention of its creation" not how can I find a loop hole to exploit it.

IMHO VAC and its benefits is there for the wounded and sick and injured due to service. It is not there for spouse after death of a VET and it is not there for the last min claim after a life time of living just to get some coin for the old boy on his death bed "however noble that could sound" If a vet served his country for a few years and 40 years later has some issues one has to look very carfully at the relevance. Now all I have said is heresy and the new charter has changed all these views but the bases of the Spirit of the legislation is Paramount. Sometimes one has to just walk away and say well I could get this but is it right.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Apr 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> After reading the long thread. I think this boils down to an issue of "What is the spirit of the legislation and what was the intention of its creation" not how can I find a loop hole to exploit it.
> 
> IMHO VAC and its benefits is there for the wounded and sick and injured due to service. It is not there for spouse after death of a VET and it is not there for the last min claim after a life time of living just to get some coin for the old boy on his death bed "however noble that could sound" If a vet served his country for a few years and 40 years later has some issues one has to look very carfully at the relevance. Now all I have said is heresy and the new charter has changed all these views but the bases of the Spirit of the legislation is Paramount. Sometimes one has to just walk away and say well I could get this but is it right.



Here here,

I agree with this post one hundred percent.

Well said Third, you have stated exactly all the feelings that I have had with this thread.

dileas

tess


----------



## 284_226 (22 Apr 2007)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> After reading the long thread. I think this boils down to an issue of "What is the spirit of the legislation and what was the intention of its creation" not how can I find a loop hole to exploit it.



If the "spirit and intent" of the legislation was to not include those members who died prior to the implementation date of the NVC, then they failed miserably at trying to communicate that in the legislation.  



> IMHO VAC and its benefits is there for the wounded and sick and injured due to service. It is not there for spouse after death of a VET and it is not there for the last min claim after a life time of living just to get some coin for the old boy on his death bed "however noble that could sound" If a vet served his country for a few years and 40 years later has some issues one has to look very carfully at the relevance. Now all I have said is heresy and the new charter has changed all these views but the bases of the Spirit of the legislation is Paramount. Sometimes one has to just walk away and say well I could get this but is it right.



I'll have to disagree with your interpretation of what VAC and their benefits are all about.  Their own mission statement says:



> To provide exemplary, client-centred services and benefits that respond to the needs of *veterans, our other clients and their families*, in recognition of their services to Canada; and to keep the memory of their achievements and sacrifices alive for all Canadians.



In our particular case, my father died from asbestosis, which was well-documented by radiology reports after diagnosis.  It's pretty unlikely that he suffered exposure to asbestos while driving a police car for 17 years, or as a municipal law enforcement officer after that.  Exposure to asbestos, however, *is* well-documented and acknowledged by VAC as being commonplace during military service in the Navy during the 50's and 60's.  Until his brief but terminal illness, he was as healthy as a horse - walking three miles a day, occasionally guest lecturing at law enforcement conferences, and had a home that was the envy of the neighbourhood as a result of a borderline obsessive gardening disorder.  In four short months, he went from that - to needing oxygen to travel from room to room - to being unable to even leave his bed.  The pension application was primarily for him, although we suspected something was seriously wrong from the outset and that he'd likely never see the benefits of a VAC application.  However, we were rightfully concerned about what would happen to my mother, who relied on him for finanical support for the most part.

Military service took her husband from her at the age of 67, and with his loss went her financial security, health benefits, and companionship.  It's only right that the government ensures that she should not suffer financial or like hardship due to her spouse's death solely attributed to military service.  She should not have to pay $1000 for a $1400 hearing aid, when PSHCP would cover it.  She should not have to pay for a bone pain drug that is excluded from coverage under Ontario Drug Benefit, but is covered under PSHCP.  She should be able to have a private or semi-private room if she is hospitalized, and there is one available - which PSHCP would provide. 

The legislation is clear.  The Health Benefits provisions of the NVC apply to *all* survivors (read: spouses) of veterans who died as a result of their military service, *not* just those who died after the implementation date of the NVC.  We're currently consulting with a lawyer, who also happens to agree that VAC is being very evasive about their legal reasoning behind their interpretation of the NVC.  The longer they stonewall, the fewer claimants they'll have to deal with, I guess.


----------



## GAP (18 Jan 2008)

I think this is the thread this goes in.....

Disabled veterans won't get day in Supreme Court
The Canadian Press January 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM EST
Article Link

OTTAWA — The country's top court has put the brakes on a multibillion-dollar damage claim by mentally disabled military veterans who say Ottawa mismanaged their pension benefits.

In a decision released without comment Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a request by the vets for permission to argue their case one more time.

The high court had previously ruled, in 2003, that the federal government acted lawfully in passing a 1990 law that barred retroactive compensation to the veterans, most of whom served in the Second World War.

Their lawyers later persuaded an Ontario Superior Court judge that the ruling applied only to accumulated interest, not to other potential damages.

The judge awarded $4.6-billion in a class-action suit launched on behalf of thousands who suffered mental trauma during their wartime service.

But the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the award last year in a judgment that left the vets empty-handed.

The latest decision by a three-judge Supreme Court panel may deal a fatal blow to any remaining hope of winning compensation through the courts.

David Greenaway, a lawyer for the veterans, said he'll consult his clients before reaching a final decision on whether any “remnants” of the lawsuit can be salvaged.

Failing that, he said, the door is still open to a political lobbying campaign aimed at the Conservative government.

“Even thought the case may have come to a conclusion, that doesn't mean the government still can't do the right thing,” said Mr. Greenaway.

“It's a political decision. It rests in the hands of the prime minister and his cabinet.”

The veterans floated the idea of an out-of-court settlement during the course of the lawsuit, said Greenaway, but the government never responded with a counter-offer.

Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson was not immediately available for comment, though aides said they were trying to reach him.
More on link


----------

