# Bill C-55 does not include minimum $40,000 Earnings Loss Benefit



## GreenBarret01 (28 Nov 2010)

Legislation introduced in the House of Commons on Nov. 17 does not include the minimum $40,000 introduced on Sep. 19 2010. There is no mention of it anywhere in the text of the first reading version.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Session=23&query=7144&List=toc

Is the minimum $40,000 already implemented in the system or was it a lie?
If it is going to implemented, how long will Vets have to wait for it while living in poverty?


----------



## Journeyman (28 Nov 2010)

Your profile reads:


> Posts: 1 (N/A per day)    Age: N/A
> *Rank: Pvt  *                    Unit: Vet


If you'd spent any time in the CF you'd know that the abbreviation for Private is Pte. 

If you've never been in the CF, there's no way you could be eligible for any sort of Canadian Veteran's Pension.
So what's the purpose of your post?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Nov 2010)

It is probable that the amount of the allowance will be set by Regulation vice Legislation - that means it's easier to amend the amount in the future to keep pace with inflation.  Regulatiosn can be changed by Treasury Board as an administrative process.  Otherwise, any change would have to be made by changing the law - a much more difficult and oneroud procedure.


----------



## GreenBarret01 (28 Nov 2010)

First of all, the post is about the promised minimum $40,000 and the injured Vets who need it. Not me!
I don't see why you would attack me instead of contributing to help the Vets understand everything.
I was a Private 14 years ago for 3 months before I injured my leg. I have since healed and am gainfully employed.

All I want is to understand what happened to the promise. It will also be useful to others who read.
It doesn't have to be about me. Not everyone is selfish.

I can't believe you asked what the purpose of the post just cuz I typed Pvt vs Pte.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Nov 2010)

I simply asked the purpose of the question, since it's not unheard of to get muck-raking media types looking for a scandalous quote.

Questioning ones authenticity and motive for posting a question is not remotely an "attack," which, by the way is against site guidelines  

IF I was remotely interested in you personally, I'd focus on your literacy (Pte, not Pvt and green beret, not green berret) and your credibility (3 months service, 14 years ago, would not have gotten you out of recruit training, yet you claim to be a "Vet"). Again, however, I was merely curious if this were a media inquiry.


----------



## GreenBarret01 (28 Nov 2010)

I hope you don't reply with "scandalous quotes" when posts are not from "muck-raking media types". One thing you got right. I am not very literate! I can't spell.
Training+ 3 months as Pte + hospitalization + sick leave = med release
I am not the media. I was interested because I understand others pain. 
I hope you won't ask me to prove that I have a scar on my leg.


----------



## Bin-Rat (28 Nov 2010)

The reason to $40,000 is not mentioned in there is because the $40,000 comes under the Earning Loss Benefit program, and Not Pension Act.

The other amount listed in the Bill $12000 is listed cause it's a modification to the Schedule II of the Pension Act, Permanent Impairment Allowance


----------



## Loachman (28 Nov 2010)

GreenBarret01: I thank you for clarifying your service. Please be aware that we frequently have fakers coming onto this site, so we tend to notice inconsistencies and errors, even small ones, in their posts. This is why you were challenged.


----------



## GreenBarret01 (28 Nov 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It is probable that the amount of the allowance will be set by Regulation vice Legislation - that means it's easier to amend the amount in the future to keep pace with inflation.  Regulatiosn can be changed by Treasury Board as an administrative process.  Otherwise, any change would have to be made by changing the law - a much more difficult and oneroud procedure.





			
				Bin-Rat said:
			
		

> The reason to $40,000 is not mentioned in there is because the $40,000 comes under the Earning Loss Benefit program, and Not Pension Act.
> 
> The other amount listed in the Bill $12000 is listed cause it's a modification to the Schedule II of the Pension Act, Permanent Impairment Allowance



Any ideas where regulation concerning the ELB might be posted online. It would be nice to follow it.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Nov 2010)

Google "The Canada Gazette".  All federal regulations are published in it.


----------



## GreenBarret01 (8 Jan 2011)

> *NEW IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NVC*
> 
> VVi 06 Jan 2011 db
> Information for Canadian Forces Our Veterans Matter
> ...



http://www.veteranvoice.info/bulletinboard.htm
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=information-canadian-forces


----------

