Author Topic: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"  (Read 256979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Simian Turner

    is a veteran who enjoys oddities!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,628
  • 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
  • *
  • 55,654
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,978
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
  • *
  • 526,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,750
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:
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 39,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 815
    • 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 »

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 488,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,876
    • 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 Legend
  • *
  • 269,521
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,353
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

Offline Simian Turner

    is a veteran who enjoys oddities!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,628
  • 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
  • *
  • 912,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,012
    • 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

  • New Member
  • **
  • 765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 35
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
  • *
  • 912,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,012
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 86,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,875
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

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 39,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 815
    • Canada For Victory
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #487 on: August 30, 2018, 12:01:19 »
 Looks like the Equitas case has come to a close.


Quote
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to hear an appeal by military veterans trying to overturn a move by the federal government years ago to change their disability pension system.

The Equitas Society launched a class-action lawsuit on behalf of military vets when the then-Harper government brought in the new Veterans Charter, that moved from a lifetime pension to a lump-sum payment.

READ MORE: Veterans take dispute with federal government over disability pensions to Supreme Court

They lost in the BC Court of Appeal and now the Supreme Court has decided not to hear their case.

Vancouver lawyer Don Sorochan, who led the legal fight, is disappointed.

“Yes, it’s the end of the line for the court action. I’m very disappointed that the legal system couldn’t provide the type of remedy that we need to ensure that the welfare of veterans is not at the whim of government.”

Sorochan was speaking on The Jon McComb Show on CKNW.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/4418507/military-veterans-lose-disability-pension-fight/amp/



Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 28,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,741
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #488 on: August 30, 2018, 12:33:40 »
That's very disappointing, big win for Trudeau.

Offline cowboy628

  • New Member
  • **
  • 765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 35
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #489 on: August 30, 2018, 12:44:14 »
Not next election

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 7,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 668
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #490 on: August 30, 2018, 13:24:09 »
Not next election

Sadly, it probably is. I don't see the CPC getting their Act together. And quite frankly, I don't think it matters. This was a lawsuit against the government not the Liberal or conservative party.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 211,329
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,735
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #491 on: August 30, 2018, 13:32:37 »
Sadly, it probably is. I don't see the CPC getting their Act together. And quite frankly, I don't think it matters. This was a lawsuit against the government not the Liberal or conservative party.

You mean the government that had this to say:

https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/33-social-covenant-canadian-veterans/

BE IT RESOLVED THAT a future Liberal government will uphold the principles of this social covenant in its defence and veterans policies, and will live up to our country’s sacred obligation to care for veterans and their families ...
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,532
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #492 on: August 30, 2018, 14:16:31 »
BE IT RESOLVED THAT a future Liberal government will uphold the principles of this social covenant in its defence and veterans policies, and will live up to our country’s sacred obligation to care for veterans and their families ...

A similar motion passed at the recent conservative convention, not that it means anything, until the social covenant is enshrined in law, it will be used for political points
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -3925.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 268,662
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,289
    • Army.ca
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #493 on: August 30, 2018, 14:58:51 »
Until the government decides to take care of the people they wounded and families of those killed, I will not be recommending the CAF as employment for anyone. It'll be "Run...as fast as you can......don't look back"  :waiting:
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline JesseWZ

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 35,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 473
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #494 on: August 30, 2018, 15:05:10 »
Not next election

Not to mention, even if Veterans or Veteran supporters vote as a block, they are too thinly distributed to do any damage to a Liberal Party they were unlikely to have voted for in the past anyways. To Veterans, and *some* close family/friends, veterans issues matter. To the general public, not so much.
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -3925.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 268,662
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,289
    • Army.ca
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #495 on: August 30, 2018, 15:12:38 »
Not to mention, even if Veterans or Veteran supporters vote as a block, they are too thinly distributed to do any damage to a Liberal Party they were unlikely to have voted for in the past anyways. To Veterans, and *some* close family/friends, veterans issues matter. To the general public, not so much.

Many Veterans are also gun owners, another block of fragmented voters. Give a few common, overlapping issues and Veterans can be a subset of an overwhelming wave against the policies of the grits.
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline JesseWZ

  • Mentor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 35,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 473
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #496 on: August 30, 2018, 16:21:31 »
Many Veterans are also gun owners, another block of fragmented voters. Give a few common, overlapping issues and Veterans can be a subset of an overwhelming wave against the policies of the grits.

But were largely rural, *conservative* minded folks like gun owners, and largely *conservative* minded folk like active serving CF members and veterans ever likely to vote for the Liberal Party? Traditionally they haven't, and I don't believe they'll feel a loss in vote share. Most of the coalition that coalesces around these issues are already conservative and likely would have voted conservative anyways.

I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Offline devil39

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 613
  • Ex-Army Guy
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #497 on: August 30, 2018, 19:36:33 »
Until the government decides to take care of the people they wounded and families of those killed, I will not be recommending the CAF as employment for anyone. It'll be "Run...as fast as you can......don't look back"  :waiting:

Agreed completely.  Not unhappy that it is unlikely my two sons will ever be joining.

 Loyalty and "unlimited liability" should be two way streets.  Not the case anymore.

Not the Canadian Forces I joined almost 35 years ago, and served in for almost 33 years.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 211,329
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,735
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #498 on: August 31, 2018, 01:55:55 »
I can't help but notice the deafening silence of the "ABC Veterans" crowd.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 176,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,200
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
« Reply #499 on: August 31, 2018, 09:15:01 »
My take on it:

For about as far back as we've had a military, there was a gentlemen's agreement between the state and society, and those who step up to serve and put themselves at risk. It didn't need to be written down anywhere, it was just understood as 'the right thing' that the state would look after those injured and disabled in its service. There was no reason to question that.

When the New Veterans Charter came in in 2006, good intentions very quickly got tripped up by political interests, glacial bureaucracy, and senior civil servants pressed to save money. It was obviously and severely flawed, and there have been at least three big layers of band-aids applied since. Some things are now better, others aren't, and plenty of veterans are still receiving compensation well short of pre-2006 disabilities. I won't be breaking that down in detail, but in short this inequity between pre-2006 disability claims and post-2006 ones is what led to the lawsuit.

The real consequence of six years of legal action initiated by veterans against the government is this: The government as its formal policy under both the Liberal and Conservative parties has clearly stated and argued in court that the government does not have any particular duty owed to veterans. They have argued that the crown is not bound by any 'social covenant', or fiduciary duty, and that there is no applicable concept of 'the honour of the crown' in the relationship between the state, and our country's veterans.

And this argument succeeded.

The government won in court. The lawsuit was thrown out, and with it that gentlemen's agreement has been walked away from by the state. The treatment of veterans is now a purely political matter, as malleable as our policies on anything else that crosses a government department's desk. There's now a vacuum where we once had an understanding of how veterans would be regarded by the state.

In effect the courts have said that this is a matter for the legislature. We now have to look to those who would run for office next year, and get a clear commitment about how they will formally codify whatever will replace that now disintegrated relationship. This is a matter for our MPs now, and they need to hear about it.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.