Author Topic: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"  (Read 245409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Simian Turner

    is a veteran who enjoys oddities!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 46,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,548
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #475 on: December 10, 2017, 02:11:27 »
Rate of inflation is usually around 3%, so a 5% interest rate gets you 2% a year...Lump sum payments are objectively inferior than pensions.

Just cause you make guesses and do not research does not make you objectively correct!

The pension indexation rate effective January 1, 2017 is 1.3%.  So 5.0 - 1.3 = 3.7% which is almost twice what you guessed!

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/after-injury/disability-benefits/disability-award/da-calc

Annual Payment Amount: $4,571.75  x 35 = $160,011.25
Amount of Award: $100,000.00
Minus Partial Payout: $0.00
Decision Date: 2014-1-3
Payments over: 35 years

Since we are relying on opinions, IMHO I repeat I would rather subjectively enjoy my money and financial options up front, than keep getting a monthly pension long after I forget why I am getting it.

d&b - teenagers volunteer to join the CAF.....and in what conflict in the last 11 years (since intro of NVC) can you name that CAF teenagers attacked a machine gun head-on and earned a disability pension?  Few of these pensions result from such glorious feats!

The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,159
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,842
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #476 on: December 10, 2017, 09:48:29 »
If the Government of Canada does not have a Sacred Trust owed to those who wear a uniform, does that same government still have the moral impetus to place those in uniform in a position of unlimited liability? 

I think this is the best part of your post, and should be an engrained part of a nation's constitution. If we are tools of the government who can legally be asked to sacrifice our lives, should the government not have unlimited liability for our welfare?

That being said, I still don't believe the lack of this sacred trust is enough reason to dissuade others from joining the CAF. Everyone's different, but I believe (naive as I may be, I'm still relatively young and less jaded then some of you) that we are employed for the benefit of the people of Canada, not the government of Canada. Unfortunately, we take our orders from the government, it the people, and we simply hope those orders are in the best interests of the people, not in the best interest of some politicians.

I realize this isn't always the case, and sometimes the strategic direction and operational taskings of the CAF ARE done only because of the self interest of some politicians. Nonetheless, I see this as a unavoidable evil. We signed up to protect Canadians should the need ever arise, but there hasn't arisen a need due to a lack of a direct threat to Canada, so what else is the government going to do with its big shiny stick?

And, from a completely different point of view, compared to a whole bunch of civilian jobs, the Canadian Forces is a relatively safe occupation, with much higher pay and benefits. Yes, if you get really injured doing something tha the CAF ordered you to do, you might not get as good treatment as even I believe you should, but the chances of such an injury happening in the CAF (in times of peace) are relatively small compared the potential for serious injury in something like logging, fishing or construction.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 506,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,389
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #477 on: December 10, 2017, 10:38:31 »
I think ....
:stars:
You've got 5-6 contradictory opinions here.  Maybe take a short time-out to work through what you believe.  :dunno:

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 37,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 751
    • Canada For Victory
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #478 on: December 10, 2017, 10:42:47 »
Quote
d&b - teenagers volunteer to join the CAF.....and in what conflict in the last 11 years (since intro of NVC) can you name that CAF teenagers attacked a machine gun head-on and earned a disability pension?  Few of these pensions result from such glorious feats!

Afghanistan. I was 19 while on pre deployment training and 20 when I was finally in country. OP MEDUSA we were ordered to take the white school houses which had a dug in enemy. We were hit with 82mm, RPG, machine gun and AK fire. Although I wasn't wounded that day many others were and others paid the ultimate sacrifice including my section commander. There were also some there that were 19 so yes teenagers have been in direct combat and injured under the NVC. I was injured 2 weeks later.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 10:59:00 by Teager »

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 471,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,351
    • The job.
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #479 on: December 10, 2017, 10:50:19 »
Yes, if you get really injured doing something tha the CAF ordered you to do, you might not get as good treatment as even I believe you should, but the chances of such an injury happening in the CAF (in times of peace) are relatively small compared the potential for serious injury in something like logging, fishing or construction.

I look at the CAF this way,

Public Safety Canada: "Public Safety Officers (PSO), such as firefighters, police, and paramedics, are personnel that provide immediate response to crises, putting their own safety at risk to aid the public and maintain public safety and security."
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2017-s011/index-en.aspx
"Compensation plans help provide a sense of security for the employee so that in the event of such an occurrence, they or their families will be compensated accordingly."









« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 10:54:54 by mariomike »

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 251,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,906
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #480 on: December 10, 2017, 11:52:08 »
Found this fitting. Mods move and punish as required.

Not to beat a dead goat but this sums up how I feel the government treats us.

There are no wolves on Fenris

Online Simian Turner

    is a veteran who enjoys oddities!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 46,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,548
  • Do the right thing; do the thing right!
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #481 on: December 10, 2017, 21:27:56 »
Afghanistan. I was 19 while on pre deployment training and 20 when I was finally in country. OP MEDUSA we were ordered to take the white school houses which had a dug in enemy. We were hit with 82mm, RPG, machine gun and AK fire. Although I wasn't wounded that day many others were and others paid the ultimate sacrifice including my section commander. There were also some there that were 19 so yes teenagers have been in direct combat and injured under the NVC. I was injured 2 weeks later.

My sympathies to you and your friends and their families.

So the answer to my question is 1 - Op Medusa. 

Globe & Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/4-canadians-killed-6-wounded-in-afghan-battle/article1102563/

"Canadian troops launched a ground assault on an insurgent position Sunday and met fierce resistance that killed four Canadians and injured six others in one of the deadliest battles...Before Sunday's casualties, at least six Canadians died and 32 were wounded in dozens of bomb attacks and ambushes."
« Last Edit: December 10, 2017, 21:39:56 by Simian Turner »
The grand essentials of happiness: something to do, something to love, something to hope for.  Allan K. Chalmers

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 896,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,634
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #482 on: December 11, 2017, 15:08:45 »
For those concerned about the government fighting veterans in court, here's your chance to force CTV's Lisa Laflamme to ask the PM tough questions for his year-end interview. No sign up or email address required.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-national-news/ask-the-prime-minister

Here's the question I asked (feel free to plagiarize so it gets asked):

Quote
What's your question?:

After promising to never fight Canadian Armed Forces veterans in court over benefits during the 2015 Election Campaign, why are the Equitas and Mefloquine lawsuits currently before the courts the only high profile litigation your government has not sought to settle out of court (Khadr, 3 Syrians, LBGTQ2 Public Servants all settled)?

Offline cowboy628

  • Guest
  • *
  • 510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 19
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #483 on: December 11, 2017, 17:47:26 »
hmmm, didn't know about the Mefloquine lawsuit.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 896,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,634
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 80,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,745
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #485 on: January 31, 2018, 11:10:14 »
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/disabled-veterans-equitas-supreme-court-1.4510457

'Grossly unfair': Disabled veterans take pension battle with Liberals to Supreme Court - Kathleen Harris - 31 Jan 18, 09:03
Case claims federal government breached 'solemn obligation' to care for injured soldier

A group of disabled veterans is taking its legal fight for better pensions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The six veterans involved in what is called the Equitas case say the federal government has a sacred obligation to care for the country's wounded soldiers, and that the duty was breached in a 2006 overhaul to the compensation regime for those injured in the line of duty.

Mark Campbell, a retired major, and former combat engineer Aaron Bedard, both part of the Equitas suit, are holding a news conference in Ottawa at 10 a.m. ET today to release details of the legal appeal to the Supreme Court. CBCNews.ca is carrying it live.

Campbell said it's a "national disgrace" that the government is spending tax dollars in a legal fight against injured veterans, and "untolerable" that changes to the pension regime have left two standards of compensation for soldiers, depending on when they were injured.

"This is grossly unfair and it has to change," he said.

The overhaul replaced lifelong disability pensions with a lump-sum payment, career training and targeted income support, which the veterans claim was worth less than the previous pension system.

The case, which they hoped to turn into a class-action lawsuit, has been winding its way through the courts since 2012. It was launched when the Conservative government was in power but continued under the Liberals.

Last year the B.C. Court of Appeal struck down the veterans' claim.

Lawyer Don Sorochan, who is representing the Equitas group, hopes the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to that decision, and definitively rule on whether the government has a "social covenant" or sacred obligation, and whether it is enforceable.

"The position taken by the government was astonishing. For them to stand up and say we don't have any special obligation to veterans was completely contrary to everything they had been saying in Parliament, on the election campaign," he told CBC News.

During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to give veterans the option to have a lifelong pension.

Major changes announced

After much frustration and protests, the government announced major changes to the compensation system in December 2017 that would pour about $3.6 billion into veterans' benefits.

But Campbell called that proposal a "sham."

"The new pension for life is nothing more than a shell game," he said.

According to a copy of the court filing to the high court, the case raises "fundamental questions about the unique and special relationship between Canada and members of the Armed Forces," and whether an "inadequate compensation scheme" breaches Canada's solemn obligation to those who served the country.

'Profound implications'

The filing says the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision could have profound implications for future military service in Canada and the very operation of Veterans Affairs Canada.

"Those who enlist in military service do so at great personal risk and sacrifice, but do so based on the premise which underlies the social covenant: Should they fall or be injured, the nation and people of Canada will ensure they will be looked after," the filing reads. "The implication of the Court of Appeal's decision is that this solemn obligation does not exist."

Sorochan said the social covenant has been recognized since the First World War, when promises were made to those who served their country. It was, and remains, necessary to build and retain a voluntary citizens' army.

Sorochan said the B.C.appeal court ruling effectively said even if a promise was made, any government could undo it "on a whim."

"I don't think that's much comfort if you're going to put your life on the line when you could take away the promise."

In a news release, Marc Burchell, president of the Equitas Society, said the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling says there is nothing embedded in the law to protect injured veterans.

"This case is about making sure the government of Canada supports our fighting men and women as they must," he said. "The government must either reinstate the old Pension Act, or must make sure compensation for injuries under the New Veterans Charter is as good as – or better – than what they received before."
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #486 on: February 07, 2018, 10:13:15 »
A look at what the government in the past has provided as part of the obligation to soldiers.  A very interesting and long list of programs.

http://wartimecanada.ca/categories/veterans-programs