# Are vets benefits "overly generous"? (split from CDS to CTV)



## Edward Campbell

I'm going to try to be a bit of a contrarian.

I think the benefits voted for veterans of World War II and Korea were overly generous.

That's not surprising: in 1939 there were about 12,000,000 Canadians ~ of all ages, sexes and mental and physical capabilities ~ by 1945 over 1,000,000 of them had been in the Armed Services, most of them voluntarily. The overwhelming majority were young_ish_ men, very _ordinary_ young men, not from the educated elite, not from the richest families. They did their best, some paid an enormous price, and "we," the big collective "we" ~ those men and women, themselves, their parents and families and friends and neighbours ~ decided, collectively, that the benefits for those who served, not just those who were wounded, were going to be extraordinarily generous. "They deserve no less," we (big we, again) said to ourselves. And why not they were our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our spouses, our friends and, indeed, they were "us,"

We, Canadians in general, drew a fairly sharp distinction between our _professional soldiers_, the peacetime _regulars_, and our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters who volunteered to serve _for the duration of hostilities,_ as their contracts read, or "when we were _needin'_ 'em, not _feedin'_ em," as the vets, themselves said. That distinction has never disappeared.

In Afghanistan we - our bureaucrats and bean counters, anyway - learned a lesson from the 1960s: technology saves lives. Men who would, surely, have died on the Korean battlefield were now treated and airlifted to medical centres during the "golden hour" and the percentage of wounded who survived went up and up and up - and their treatment costs were going to last a lifetime, too. It was, still is, an accounting nightmare for a certain class of men and women who wear tasteful grey suits to work and who never, ever leave their comfortable offices.

Enter Albina Guarnieri who was Minister of Veterans' Affairs from 2004 until 2006 and who gave us the New Veterans' Charter. I don't think either Ms Guarnieri or Prime Minister Martin planned, explicitly, to shortchange wounded vets - but I do think that her Deputy Minister, the late Jack Stagg was fully conscious of the long term costs of veterans' benefits, and was keen to find a way to save some money.

Ms Guarnieri's successor, Conservative Minister Greg Thompson could have, and in my opinion should have, canned the Charter on one simple basis: one does not change horses in mid-stream. We were in a shooting war from 2002-2012, men were coming home in body bags and with grievous wounds, of all sorts; it was, still is, *morally* wrong to _improve_ the benefits system while were were taking casualties. 

But I want to reaffirm that, for all sorts of good _political_ reasons, the benefits system Ms Guarnieri replaced with the New veterans' Charter was too generous.

So, even though the benefits structure that was in place when the Government of Canada committed (and then recommitted) Canadians to combat in Afghanistan is too generous, it should not be amended until we have got almost all of the CF "out of harm's way."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Sorry but..._too generous_?  For wounded vets, etc I don't believe a country can be '_too/overly generous_'.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ..... for all sorts of good _*political*_ reasons, the benefits system Ms Guarnieri replaced with the New veterans' Charter was too generous ....


Given your repeated (and, in my eyes, accurate) assessment that support for "the troops" is a mile wide but an inch deep, politically, it might be difficult to sell the public/voters on growing such benefits at the cost of other programming that people don't want to see cut.  The political question becomes "will enough voters be pissed enough to see vets shortchanged to make that a significant factor in choosing who to vote for?"  Sadly, I don't think so.  So will government do the popular thing (or, less kindly, the thing they can get away with), or do the "right" thing regardless of true public sentiment?

All that said, the "right" thing to do is to at least treat the current cohort of wounded warriors at least as well as previous cohorts.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry but..._too generous_?  For wounded vets, etc I don't believe a country can be '_too/overly generous_'.



No??......you know it's not just military folks who get hurt doing thier jobs.  And most for a lot less money.......


----------



## Rifleman62

ERC: 


> Ms Guarnieri's successor, Conservative Minister Greg Thompson could have, and in my opinion should have, canned the Charter on one simple basis: one does not change horses in mid-stream.



Greg Thompson, IMHO and from some info, was a quite man who was kept on the road and out of the way by the bureaucrats. 

Ineffectual.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> No??......you know it's not just military folks who get hurt doing thier jobs.  And most for a lot less money.......



I'm not sure what the point is.  Talking about vets who are injured while serving Canada and how Johnny slipped on ice while working his shift at Canadian Tire is applies/oranges.


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the point is.  Talking about vets who are injured while serving Canada and how Johnny slipped on ice while working his shift at Canadian Tire is applies/oranges.



It's a spectrum...what about EMS workers, police, other government workers serving society?  So only military members?  That, unless I'm missing something, is what Mr. Monkhouse is getting at.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Part of it and part of it is about "Johnny at Canadian Tire"....................Johnny might just be as f#@&ed up and unable to support his family as the vet.
...and to be blunt, the Vet signed on the dotted line knowing the score.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more support but enough of the self-placement on the pedestal. It's a well paid job...full stop.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> It's a spectrum...what about EMS workers, police, other government workers serving society?  So only military members?  That, unless I'm missing something, is what Mr. Monkhouse is getting at.



I understand what he's getting at, I just don't see the direct relevance to this thread and the CDS comments/people's thoughts on how well DVA-VAC is doing.

EMS workers, police (aside from RCMP) should all be looked after for injuries sustained during the duties, of course.  But that has little to do with VAC issues (IMO).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

My comments had nothing to do with what the CDS said. It was in reference to what you said....



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry but..._too generous_?  For wounded vets, etc I don't believe a country can be '_too/overly generous_'.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Part of it and part of it is about "Johnny at Canadian Tire"....................Johnny might just be as f#@&ed up and unable to support his family as the vet.
> ...and to be blunt, the Vet signed on the dotted line knowing the score.



Yes they did.  Part of that 'score' was understanding that *if* they were injured, VAC would be there.  Same as Johnny when he goes to work knowing his employeer, WCB, etc will be there if he slips on the ice during his shift.  Again...apples/oranges.  




> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more support but enough of the self-placement on the pedestal. It's a well paid job...full stop.



What self-placement on the pedestal and by who?   ???


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

So, being one of those "loud-mouthed Union reps" referred to earlier in this thread, if I said there should be "no limit" to what "Johnny with the broken ankle" should get you'd just sign off and say okie dokie?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'd likely say nothing, as (1) it doesn't really matter or concern me directly with how Walmart compensates workers who slip on ice during their shift and (2) I don't see how it pertains to this specific topic (VAC, benefits to injured/wounded CF mbr's and Vets).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Naw,..you wouldn't.....enjoy the pedestal.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Naw,..you wouldn't.....enjoy the pedestal.



 :facepalm:

You're right.  What was I doing, thinking _I_ actually knew what I thought or gave a shit about.

As it seems the only thing you're interested in is  :slapfight: I'll step aside on this Johnny/Walmart 'distraction' stuff, m'kay?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Since we're talking about ankles and feets I remember hearing that in the CF someone loosing a foot gets the same payout, for example,  as someone loosing both legs and an arm. (in comparison a civi-side a whiplash case will netted 2 mil).  Probably apples and oranges but generous still doesn't come to mind when I hear VA.


----------



## Nemo888

The RCMP get the their benefits through VAC just like soldiers so your point is moot Mr. Monkhouse.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The RCMP get the their benefits through VAC just like soldiers so your point is moot Mr. Monkhouse.



..and I said "pardon"?
I didn't mention, nor do I care, who the RCMP have to go through......


----------



## rubberhead291

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Part of it and part of it is about "Johnny at Canadian Tire"....................Johnny might just be as f#@&ed up and unable to support his family as the vet.
> ...and to be blunt, the Vet signed on the dotted line knowing the score.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more support but enough of the self-placement on the pedestal. It's a well paid job...full stop.



Unless things have changed, Canadian Tire is subject to a slew of provincial laws and codes that govern employer and employees when it comes to safety in the workplace.  Not the least of which is the Canada Labour Code.  Something which does NOT apply to members of the CAF.  So, regardless of whether Sammy soldier signs on a dotted line, and he/she is informed that their employer does not have to follow the same standard of care as the vast vast majority of Canadian employers -  it does not remove DND from the moral obligation to stop carrying for injured servicemen/women, when the paychecks stop.  That is the precedent which the GoC set following WWi/WWII, and it's reasonable to assume that soldiers signing up in the past few decades expected the same standard of care if they were injured.  

I don't fully disagree with your comment about pedestals, but when you get past all the rhetoric, that's not what this is about.  That could be another thread all together.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:


----------



## Swingline1984

rubberhead291 said:
			
		

> Unless things have changed, Canadian Tire is subject to a slew of provincial laws and codes that govern employer and employees when it comes to safety in the workplace.  Not the least of which is the Canada Labour Code.  Something which does NOT apply to members of the CAF.



You are incorrect.  Members of the CAF are subject to DND Safety Policy and the DND Safety Standards which includes the Labour Code specifically as part of its doctrine.  The only caveat is that Commanders can deviate from code when they have good reason (an exchange of bullets for instance).  A Commander who does choose to deviate is expected to justify his decision or face the consequences.  As bases are federal jurisdiction it only makes sense that federal code applies as attempting to marry the myriad of different provincial codes into the workplace and maintain a common spectrum of training would prove impossible.

I'm curious where you got the idea that there is no safety governance in the workplace?  It is everywhere, from the the posters on the wall to Fire Inspections, to the Safety Indoctrination Checklist you are supposed to sign when you first arrive at a new workplace.  I'd bet more than a few people just chalk all that up to nuisance and complain when a safety inspection is completed, the ramifications of which require them to move a box off of the top of their locker or stick a glowing arrow to the floor (I imagine cries of, "This is BS!" echoing down the hallways).

Read all those Orders and such hanging on the wall.  You know, the ones that EVERYONE is supposed to read.  They're full of interesting info.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Oh gee,...here's that 'pedestal' I mentioned that some folks have.

Subject: Re: CDS to CTV:  Canada \"Well ahead of many of our NATO allies\" on vets
Link: http://forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/112383/post-1261518.html#msg1261518
Amount: -300 MilPoints
Notes: Comparing civvie employment to military service is simply insulting.

Really?  Well since I've done both for over 10 years each I must say that I faced a lot more danger in my civi. job than I did in my military one.
[and, yes, I do know everyone's milage does vary, many have faced dangers that would probably give me nightmares]


----------



## Teager

From the reports I have read VAC benefits have been compared to workers comp and federal employee benefits and at the end of it vets are still getting less according to the reports. Lets not start a debate about workers comp and its issues now that I've mentioned it.

AFAIK Police, Fire and EMS are well looked after if they are injured with little to no complaints wrt benefits except RCMP.

Is there lots of benefits for soldiers? Yes, there is but one of the big problems is the constant denial and restrictions for these benefits. 

Bruce this "pedestal" doesn't really exist. The reason being is that soldiers that have an injury/illness are beyond frustrated they are dealing with life altering injury/illness are juggling there family, then dealing with the benefits system, and trying to figure out what they can still do  by means of a new career. So if someone is "insulted" or offended by a comment let it go its not a pedestal thing its a generral thing that many soldiers and vets struggle with daily.

Soldiers knowingly went to war and gave up big parts of their life when injured/ill/killed but they did so in the belief that they and their families would be taken care of not to be denied.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It comes down to a covenant that was made between the government and the soldier, who signed the contract of 'Unlimited Liability'.

A contract that no civie worker is ever required to commit to or honour.

That fact alone entitles the Veteran to whatever he can get, vice what an injured civilian gets.

That contract nullifies any comparison.


Just a small snippet of that mindset: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canadian+soldiers+have+unique+take+liability/6877609/story.html


----------



## krustyrl

recceguy said:
			
		

> It comes down to a covenant that was made between the government and the soldier, who signed the contract of 'Unlimited Liability'.
> 
> A contract that no civie worker is ever required to commit to or honour.
> 
> That fact alone entitles the Veteran to whatever he can get, vice what an injured civilian gets.
> 
> That contract nullifies any comparison.
> 
> 
> Just a small snippet of that mindset: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canadian+soldiers+have+unique+take+liability/6877609/story.html



Well said, all I can say.


----------



## Remius

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Well said, all I can say.



He's batting a hundred today.  I can't rate the post since I already did for another post but very well said.


----------



## PuckChaser

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Really?  Well since I've done both for over 10 years each I must say that I faced a lot more danger in my civi. job than I did in my military one.
> [and, yes, I do know everyone's milage does vary, many have faced dangers that would probably give me nightmares]



I'll claim that milpoint reduction, and stand by it. Comparing civilian employment at Walmart to someone serving their country under unlimited liability is incredibly insulting. It doesn't matter that during the 25 years most serve they won't come face to face with that clause, its the simply fact that we are required to do things that don't have a provincial workplace safety program to protect us.

So your civilian job is dangerous? To use your own ridiculous logic against fair military vet compensation:



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and to be blunt, the Vet signed on the dotted line knowing the score.



So maybe we shouldn't have any sympathy for you, either.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Teager said:
			
		

> From the reports I have read VAC benefits have been compared to workers comp and federal employee benefits and at the end of it vets are still getting less according to the reports. Lets not start a debate about workers comp and its issues now that I've mentioned it.
> 
> AFAIK Police, Fire and EMS are well looked after if they are injured with little to no complaints wrt benefits except RCMP.
> 
> Is there lots of benefits for soldiers? Yes, there is but one of the big problems is the constant denial and restrictions for these benefits.
> 
> Bruce this "pedestal" doesn't really exist. The reason being is that soldiers that have an injury/illness are beyond frustrated they are dealing with life altering injury/illness are juggling there family, then dealing with the benefits system, and trying to figure out what they can still do  by means of a new career. So if someone is "insulted" or offended by a comment let it go its not a pedestal thing its a generral thing that many soldiers and vets struggle with daily.
> 
> Soldiers knowingly went to war and gave up big parts of their life when injured/ill/killed but they did so in the belief that they and their families would be taken care of not to be denied.



I've 'transitioned' from Army to Fire, and I can confirm that Police/EMS/Fire are subject to provincial WCB/WSIB for work related injuries. Ya know, the same WSIB/WCB that Disability Awards are compared to and found to be lacking? 

Also, the emergency services have an attitude of 'safety first' and 'everyone goes home'. Quite a world apart from the 'some of us won't be coming home' that you hear overseas. Some pedestal.


----------



## mariomike

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I've 'transitioned' from Army to Fire, and I can confirm that Police/EMS/Fire are subject to provincial WCB/WSIB for work related injuries.



Also, what the union negotiated into the collective agreement.

If Permanently Partially Disabled ( PPD ) in the Line of Duty, our pre-injury rate of pay was maintained until retirement. 

Most importantly, "It is understood that the pre-injury rate is subject to all wage increases negotiated."

You may also be eligible for a Non Economic Loss ( NEL ) from WSIB.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry but..._too generous_?  For wounded vets, etc I don't believe a country can be '_too/overly generous_'.




I was referring to veterans' benefits in general, and I stand by my contention that those general benefits are overly generous.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Given your repeated (and, in my eyes, accurate) assessment that support for "the troops" is a mile wide but an inch deep, politically, it might be difficult to sell the public/voters on growing such benefits at the cost of other programming that people don't want to see cut.  The political question becomes "will enough voters be pissed enough to see vets shortchanged to make that a significant factor in choosing who to vote for?"  Sadly, I don't think so.  So will government do the popular thing (or, less kindly, the thing they can get away with), or do the "right" thing regardless of true public sentiment?
> 
> All that said, the "right" thing to do is to at least treat the current cohort of wounded warriors at least as well as previous cohorts.




Milnews.ca got what i was trying to say: while I think benefits, generally, were too generous I believe that our wounded deserve at least the same benefits as their peers from World War II and Korea received.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'll claim that milpoint reduction, and stand by it. Comparing civilian employment at Walmart to someone serving their country under unlimited liability is incredibly insulting. It doesn't matter that during the 25 years most serve they won't come face to face with that clause, its the simply fact that we are required to do things that don't have a provincial workplace safety program to protect us.
> 
> So your civilian job is dangerous? To use your own ridiculous logic against fair military vet compensation:
> 
> So maybe we shouldn't have any sympathy for you, either.



Never asked you for any,...I know, and knew, the score when I started.
I guess you happened to miss the post about all the workplace safety regs you folks are covered under.

NEVER did I question that our 'Wounded Vets' don't require more of just about everything.
All this started because I questioned one poster that said we could never be "too generous". [cue Dr. Evil voice?]


I keep hearing folks bring up "unlimited liability"......fair enough and I've NEVER, nor would I, ever belittle that.  However I cringe sometimes at this almost Monty Pythonesque use of "serving our country" along with it. You have a job. You are getting paid well.  You are serving self first.  There is nothing wrong with that, that is how it should be.

I just wonder how many buildings in this vast system we have where if I walked down the hallways and pointed out "You and you and you, on the plane now", how many would trip getting up from their desks thereby 'wrecking' thier ankle and/or just walk out the back door?.......... "serving country".

I'm done with this one.
Carry on...........


----------



## FJAG

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Since we're talking about ankles and feets I remember hearing that in the CF someone loosing a foot gets the same payout, for example,  as someone loosing both legs and an arm. (in comparison a civi-side a whiplash case will netted 2 mil).  Probably apples and oranges but generous still doesn't come to mind when I hear VA.



Interesting comparison. I remember when the VA change came out I compared it to what I was familiar with in the public run vehicle insurance schemes. We who practised in the system used to cynically call it the "meat list" because of its somewhat arbitrary way of providing awards which varied with the amount of flesh one lost in an accident. 

What was interesting at the time was that as the military moved towards a system structured like the civilian ones, the civilian ones were rapidly cutting back in what they provided coverage for. In Manitoba there were two major changes. One was the removal of the "minor whiplash" injury from compensation. In fact whiplash had never been heavily compensated except in Ontario where the awards could go to the tens of thousands (it was never in the millions - remember a whiplash is a soft tissue injury without broken bones or permanent damage - permanent pain perhaps but no "damage" - it is not quadriplegia for which the Supreme Court set a $100,000 dollar limit [that's in 1978 dollars adjusted for inflation and the basis why upper end insurance awards for non-pecuniary loss {pain, suffering, loss of amenities, etc}nowadays falls in the $200-250,000 range]). The second was income replacement with caps for both maximum monthly payouts and length of payout. In effect the new Manitoba legislation removed the right to sue and left things in the hands of a bureaucratic system. It had been the courts where individuals could establish, on evidence, that they were individual cases deserving individual compensation. We now have an upper end of the "average man".

Needless to say I was of the view that the system being introduced by the Charter was turning to a system which most lawyers regarded with scepticism. I was particularly unhappy with the fact that Class A reservists disabled on duty were not treated equitably. 

The prior system did have some advantages (lifetime support rather than just working life income replacement being one) but it always had lacked one benefit which I thought that the US did much better than us. Under the GI Bill a serving soldier could for a very modest pay deduction paid in over a short time, earn a very substantial payout for post secondary education. I always thought that this was a very good investment on the US government's part in taking individuals who served for periods greatly short of a full career (particulalry draftees) and gave them the ability to complete or expand their education to become higher wage earners and greater contributors to society as a whole. That was a "veteran's" benefit totally unrelated to injury but rewarding service. We seem to take very little interest in individuals who leave after short terms of service.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

One must be careful not to confuse the confusing array of benefits out there.

Under the NVC, a duty injury is a duty injury regardless of the component or sub-component of the injured member.

However, the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Program (ADIP) did have the unconscionable discrimination against Reservists; those on class A or class B under 180 days had their limbs set as worth only 40% of those of their Reg F confreres.

To the credit of Peter Mackay as MND, despite objections from some guardians of the public purse, he pushed the Treasury Board to make changes to amend the ADIP policy for members of the Primary Reserve - I'm not certain whether a similar change has been made for members of the COATS and Canadian Rangers.


----------



## Rifleman62

DAP: 





> Under the NVC, a duty injury is a duty injury regardless of the component or sub-component of the injured member.



VAC files for Reservists have "RESERVE" stamped on the front jacket in large capital block letters. Throughout the VAC documents it is stated the claimant is a member of the Reserve. No mention of full or part time service.

I have not seen very recent VAC files, but doubt this practice has changed.



> However, the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Program (ADIP) did have the unconscionable discrimination against Reservists; those on class A or class B under 180 days had their limbs set as worth only 40% of those of their Reg F confreres.



If VAC practices "unconscionable discrimination against Reservists" on something as obvious as dismemberment, why do you not think than when a file is branded "Reserve" that discrimination is not a practice? After all the claimant only works a couple nights and a day a month.


----------



## dapaterson

ADIP is not a VAC program.  It's DND/CAF.


----------



## Nemo888

Vet's needed to be demanding after 2005. So many were screwed over. Many ended up crippled and on the streets. The sacred promise of unlimited liability was undeniably broken  by the government. There is no debate about that. In no other job can your boss put you deliberately in mortal danger without being put in jail.

There have been monumental improvements since 2005. Back then "overly generous" would have been considered cruel sarcasm. I think it could use significantly more tweaking. The lump sum was about what a soldier would have received in approx 6.3 years on the old system. To be fair we need to claw back the old benefits as well. The war had already started when the benefit was cut. This is devious and throws new vets under the bus while still paying comparatively huge sums to old vets. Either rob everyone or no one. This is was so politically two faced it makes the government look like they were dealing in bad faith from day one. Which obviously they were. 

If we don't keep their feet to the fire things will get worse again. That you can depend on.


----------



## Teager

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was referring to veterans' benefits in general, and I stand by my contention that those general benefits are overly generous.
> 
> 
> Milnews.ca got what i was trying to say: while I think benefits, generally, were too generous I believe that our wounded deserve at least the same benefits as their peers from World War II and Korea received.



By what standards do you believe the benefits are overly generous? Are you saying compared to the rest of NATO or just in general? Could you give an example of where you would draw the line on benefits so they would not be overly generous?

I just want to understand what you are saying a little better. I know my last question may erk some people the wrong way if you answer it but feel free to PM me.


----------



## HTFUAlberta

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Also, the emergency services have an attitude of 'safety first' and 'everyone goes home'. Quite a world apart from the 'some of us won't be coming home' that you hear overseas. Some pedestal.



I gotta comment on this.... "some Pedestal" quote.... Some of the guys on my crew have served from Cyprus to Afghanistan. We've had CAF vets on my FD fall through floors on structure fires (the only thing that saved him was an awesome partner and a well placed hose), get caught in flashovers and have had more near misses than one FF could imagine. We do put safety first and like to stress everybody goes home because we know the importance of losing a brother or sister. I am under the assumption that the comment "some pedestal" comes from a respect of emergency services towards the intrinsic value of life safety in any operation. Once again I'm not trolling but as someone who is just a firefighter with no military experience I think the quote from Patton sums it up the best:

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
George S. Patton 

We've never beaten a fire or any other incident by dying... We'll happily and willingly put our lives up as collateral on a job for good reason. That's just simple tactics.

Is that different from a military operation? Absolutely! Does it mean putting us up on a pedestal? NEVER!

 It's a job we signed up for and the whole pedestal thing should be reserved for the guys trying to puff up their egos or the guys trying to score a 0200HRS at the bar.... As to paraphrase one of the guys at my hall who has been to one too many ramp ceremonies than he should have: " Be nice to the guys on your engine crew because one day you won't have a chance to"

And I think that Emergency Services has embraced that concept with the statement: "Risk alot to save alot, Risk little to save little" I can attribute that concept to the fact that i'm still here. 

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_s_patton.html#hTryCkR22yiVIBcR.99


----------



## mariomike

HTFUAlberta said:
			
		

> And I think that Emergency Services has embraced that concept with the statement: "Risk alot to save alot, Risk little to save little"



I agree with you.

"Unlimited Liability" in the military was brought up several times in this topic. 

There is a discussion of it here that I found interesting, perhaps you will too.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/34520.0;nowap


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

In my humble opinion, the system is open to abuse and this undermines the support that is required by those in dire needs.  During the past year, I was aghast by request to get CF 98's returned quickly so that young soldiers could go to VAC to submit a claim.   I openly encourage that proper paperwork be submitted to document incidents, however, to be talking a VAC claim immediately for a tweak at morning PT led me to believe there was coaching occurring amongst the troops.  I am sure that there are plugs at VAC, however, when you receive an enormous amount of claims it is sometimes hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.  I don't think that it is overgenerous, just bogged down with erstwhile claims that take away from the folks that need it the most.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

HTFUAlberta said:
			
		

> I gotta comment on this.... "some Pedestal" quote.... Some of the guys on my crew have served from Cyprus to Afghanistan. We've had CAF vets on my FD fall through floors on structure fires (the only thing that saved him was an awesome partner and a well placed hose), get caught in flashovers and have had more near misses than one FF could imagine. We do put safety first and like to stress everybody goes home because we know the importance of losing a brother or sister. I am under the assumption that the comment "some pedestal" comes from a respect of emergency services towards the intrinsic value of life safety in any operation. Once again I'm not trolling but as someone who is just a firefighter with no military experience I think the quote from Patton sums it up the best:
> 
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb ******* die for his country."
> George S. Patton
> 
> We've never beaten a fire or any other incident by dying... We'll happily and willingly put our lives up as collateral on a job for good reason. That's just simple tactics.



I think you took my quote out of context. I was stating that the 'pedestal' that some believe the forces are mistakenly placed upon in a bit of hero-worship is, as others have said, a mile wide and an inch deep. If you asked the average Canadian if he 'supports the troops', you'll most likely get a regurgitated quote about heros and standing on guard and keeping us free and all that. If you followed up that question with 'what social program/government department/tax break do you want to cut in order to fully support our veterans and provide unlimited care for injured and ill soldiers', you'd probably get a lot of humming and hawing and they would basically change their tune. Is it any different for cops/ff's/paramedics? No, but cops/ff's/paramedics have unions/association which will negotiate further critical injury/death and dismemberment/long term disability benefits


----------



## mariomike

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Is it any different for cops/ff's/paramedics? No, but cops/ff's/paramedics have unions/association which will negotiate further critical injury/death and dismemberment/long term disability benefits



Duty to Accommodate guarantees you a job for life with the city. 

"Suitable employment consistent with the employee's skills and functional abilities that does not pose a health and safety hazard to the employee or the co-worker."

You keep your rate of pay, and get your raises every year. Same as you did on Operations.

You may also receive a Non-Economic Loss ( NEL ) award from WSIB.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This bit from the House of Commons question period yesterday, with an interesting crafting of an explanation of benefits available under the current system:


> *Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC):  *Mr. Speaker, since 2006, our government has invested almost $5 billion new dollars to improve financial benefits and improve services like snow cleaning and home cleaning while focusing on veterans' rehabilitation. In total, this represents one-third more than previous governments spent on a yearly basis for Canadian veterans.
> 
> Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs please update this House on any new improvements our government has made?
> 
> *Mr. Parm Gill (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC):  *Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Northumberland—Quinte West for his hard work for Canadian veterans.
> 
> In fact, according to the Veterans Ombudsman, a 24-year corporal who is medically released from the military will now receive upwards of $2 million in total financial benefits because of improvements our government has made. What is more, a veteran who is injured in the line of duty will now have up to $75,000 for university or college tuition for retraining and certification programs.
> 
> Our government is focused on helping veterans transition to civilian life, and we will continue to do that.


----------



## Nemo888

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This bit from the House of Commons question period yesterday, with an interesting crafting of an explanation of benefits available under the current system:



Except that the numbers tell the opposite story.  Total annual payouts to vets have been been stable at 3,500,000,000. Payouts only increased by a tiny 1,247,000 in 2012, an increase of 0.03%.  How does 5 billion turn into 1.2 million in additional benefits?

They do know soldiers can do math and they publish the annual budget right?


----------



## Edward Campbell

A friend of mine posted this on jhis Facebook page ...







     ... and invited us to 'share' it if we agreed.

I haven't done so yet because I have similar views to the ones I posted at the start of the _Are vets benefits "overly generous"?_ page.

I think seniors ~ a group to which I belong ~ are very well, even too well treated. Many, but not all of us, get more benefits than we need.

We get them because we vote in disproportionately high numbers and retail politicians want to buy our vote with your money. So it's analogous to the _veterans industry_ ...

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Now, I need to repeat: _I think_ the _New Veterans' Charter_ is immoral because of the way it was introduced: while we had troops in contact with the enemy and without provisions to _'grandfather'_ members serving when the Act came into force. _I suspect_ it is good policy, at least from an economic standpoint.

I also believe that M Trudeau is making a tactical error in telling seniors (and many others) that he's going to scrap benefits (like the TFSA limits) for which some seniors' and family advocacy groups campaigned.

But just because something is good politics or good economics doesn't make it _right_.


----------



## Words_Twice

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> In my humble opinion, the system is open to abuse and this undermines the support that is required by those in dire needs.  During the past year, I was aghast by request to get CF 98's returned quickly so that young soldiers could go to VAC to submit a claim.   I openly encourage that proper paperwork be submitted to document incidents, however, to be talking a VAC claim immediately for a tweak at morning PT led me to believe there was coaching occurring amongst the troops.  I am sure that there are plugs at VAC, however, when you receive an enormous amount of claims it is sometimes hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.  I don't think that it is overgenerous, just bogged down with erstwhile claims that take away from the folks that need it the most.



Replying to an ancient post, I know. It is certainly better than the "good ole days" when you were to told to STFU, stop snivelling and soldier on. I would prefer a climate where reporting legitimate injuries are encouraged, not laughed at (seen it, trust me).


----------

