# KVA solely responsible for New Vets Charter ?



## Evocatus (6 Apr 2016)

Discussing the New Vets Charter with some retired acquaintances, expressing my [uniformed view] that I felt it was simply a matter of the civil servant bean counters, convincing the politicians that going from a monthly med pension cheque to one time payment, would save millions/billion...

A mate chimed in to say, that " no, in fact it was precisely due to the Korean Vets Assn (KVA), whose members were now looking at many med issues developing in their older years, and under the old system, they would simply benefit [little] from a monthly cheque, for the last 5-10 years of their lives...."

As such, " the KVA lobbied the gov heavily for a one time payout, which would benefit Korean vets.. "

The thinking being, that 'we' had just done Bosnia'ish and no one was thinking that we would be deploying anywhere, and sustaining large number of injured troops [Afghanistan], and IMHO, no one [especially the CF Medical Corps] foresaw Shell Shock resurrecting it's head...

So, ahead they went counting the beans to substantiate the New Vets Charter, and by the time they did, it was now the middle'ish of our Afghan deployment, to late to slow down and reverse the New Vets Charter....so here we sit.
------------
Based on buddies opinion, I have queried the ole internet and cannot find any refs, that would support his theory that the KVA is primarily resp for the development/implementation of the New Vets Charter... for the reasons detailed above.

Anyone ?

_- mod edit of title to fix spelling & clarify -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Apr 2016)

Evocatus said:
			
		

> ... Based on buddies opinion, I have queried the ole internet and cannot find any refs, that would support his theory that the KVA is *primarily resp* for the development/implementation of the New Vets Charter... for the reasons detailed above ...


Without detailed knowledge of the lobbying work behind the file, I'm comfortable (95-97% sure) saying "solely responsible" isn't the case - even "primarily responsible" is a pretty strong phrase when you consider what an octopus "who affects what in government" is ...





(source of image)


----------



## armyvern (6 Apr 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Without detailed knowledge of the lobbying work behind the file, I'm comfortable (95-97% sure) saying "solely responsible" isn't the case - even "primarily responsible" is a pretty strong phrase when you consider what an octopus "who affects what in government" is ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ooooh, a _wicked_ problem.


----------



## Gunner98 (6 Apr 2016)

Two interesting takes on NVC:

http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/eng/blog/post/287, Myth Busting from 2015 - Guy Parent

KVA Internet Journal Oct 2013 - http://www.kvacanada.com/newsletterpdf/oct092013newsletter.pdf

KVA (or outspoken members of it) was certainly critical of:
- Mr. Fantino,
- how the NVC was developed, and
- the follow-on - broken promises, misrepresentations and the impact.


----------



## Evocatus (7 Apr 2016)

Thx people. I'll follow up on the links.


----------

