Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"

[cowboy628]

[

 

[CountDC]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=8168978

Seems to be moving along.  Bill C-12.

 

[The Bread Guy]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=8168978

Seems to be moving along.  Bill C-12.

First Reading as of 24 March - more on the steps needed for this to become law here or here.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Lump sum

27 An amount that is to be paid under any of sections 21 to 24 is to be paid as a lump sum.

I hope the Opposition takes them to task on this one, during discussion of the Bill. However, I'm not holding my breathe. : One of the big things we've been asking is for a return to monthly payments and it looks like the Trudeau Liberals are trying to slide away from it unnoticed.

 

[ModlrMike]

I read the bill top to bottom. Sorry, not impressed.

 

[PuckChaser]

This bill is just the crap announced in the budget. No new changes.

 

[Occam]

I hope the Opposition takes them to task on this one, during discussion of the Bill. However, I'm not holding my breathe. : One of the big things we've been asking is for a return to monthly payments and it looks like the Trudeau Liberals are trying to slide away from it unnoticed.

They have not. Except where they have explicitly stated that something is to happen immediately, the mandate letter to the minister is for the duration of the Liberal term. With a majority government, they have four years and four budgets.

It would be foolish to expect them to achieve much or most of this mandate in the first budget. "Re-establish life long pensions as an option for our injured veterans" is a project that will take more than the five months they have had. In December the department sought input from a wide array of veterans groups and advocates. They seemed to be listening. They were essentially given the blessing by all these stakeholders to take time and do it right. Note that from the same line item of the mandate letter, a lump some increase (retroactive) WAS already implemented. That was an easy one; low hanging fruit. Likely the increase to Earnings Loss Benefit.

[...]

Altogether an unimpressive budget, but not a failure either. They have also explicitly pledged to continue consultation with veterans over the next year. I am in a position to say that they seem to be expanding their stakeholder outreach, but we will see how that manifests in real action.

I am less interested, with regards to the veterans portfolio, in this budget than I am in the next one. It wil be the coming year that will show us if the Liberals intend to stand by their commitments to veterans.

From what I've read elsewhere, the government was prepared to reinstate it right away; it was the veterans groups who insisted the time be taken to get it done right.

 

[Teager]

MAY 2, 2016
Winnipeg Free Press
Canada
Put it in writing, Afghan vets tell Liberals as settlement looms in lawsuit
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
Posted: 05/2/2016 12:27 PM | Comments: 0

Tweet 0  Post 0  Reddit 0  ShareThis 0  Print  Email 0
OTTAWA - The Trudeau government is drafting a letter of assurance it hopes will end a class-action lawsuit by Afghan veterans angry about a 10-year-old overhaul of their benefits and entitlements.

The legal challenge, which became a lightning rod under the Conservative government, was put in abeyance over a year ago in the B.C. Supreme Court, where it was filed on behalf of six complainants.

The legal time-out was intended, at the time, to give the Harper government an opportunity to introduce a series of improvements to the so-called New Veterans Charter, which — among other things — replaced lifetime pensions for serious injuries with lump-sum awards and a patchwork of stipends.

Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, says those changes — along with new measures introduced in the Liberal budget and the promise of a return to the lifetime pension — may be enough for them to drop the case.

He says a meeting earlier this month involving the minister, senior Veterans Affairs officials and lawyers for the Department of Justice, brought them close to a settlement, but the ex-soldiers want to see the federal government acknowledge its commitments in writing.

"We told the minister that we didn't need another Rotary Club meeting where he goes around and shakes hands and says how nice everybody is," Sorochan told The Canadian Press. "We wanted to get a firm commitment from them about what their intentions are to implement the (minister's) mandate letter."

After being sworn in last November, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr was ordered, in writing, by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to implement the Liberals' campaign promises and Sorochan says the measures outlined in the mandate letter satisfy the grievances of his clients.

The Liberal budget poured $5.6 billion into veterans programs over six years, but it did not restore lifetime pensions.

Since there are thousands of veterans who come under the umbrella of the new system, Sorochan says it's only natural that the government is trying to figure out how to straighten out the system in a way that's fair to everybody.

"My guys are quite happy with the way it is going," Sorochan said, referring to both the regulatory changes and the amount of consultation federal officials have done with the ex-soldiers.

Indeed, Trudeau's commitment to wounded soldiers was on full display Monday in Toronto as he joined Prince Harry for events marking the countdown to the 2017 Invictus Games.

He underlined the government's recent commitments

"Our soldiers deserve the greatest attention and much compassion from their nation," Trudeau said. "They embody the best of the Canadian identity and have won our respect and our gratitude forever."

Aside from embarrassing Conservatives among their core political constituency, the way federal lawyers defended the lawsuit three years ago caused enormous political damage.

Their statement of defence made clear that the federal government believed it had no special obligation to soldiers and that promises of care for the wounded, dating back to the First World War, were political statements not binding on present or future governments.

Sorochan says the language has since been modified, but he believes the debate strikes at the heart of the Constitution in the sense that it would be impossible for a nation to raise a citizen's army during war — or even a peacetime volunteer force — without some kind of assurance that the wounded and the families of the fallen would receive special attention.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/put-it-in-writing-afghan-vets-tell-liberals-as-settlement-looms-in-lawsuit-377832201.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

The Trudeau government is drafting a letter of assurance it hopes will end a class-action lawsuit by Afghan veterans angry about a 10-year-old overhaul of their benefits and entitlements ...

op:

 

[brihard]

From what I've read elsewhere, the government was prepared to reinstate it right away; it was the veterans groups who insisted the time be taken to get it done right.

Yup. A total reversion from NVC back to the Pension Act was not being asked for, and woul dhave done a lot of harm in scrapping good rehabilitative programs. What is being asked for by vts groups is a mergine of the two, so there can be a life long pension option of equitable value for those who need that, but also retaining the rehabilitative options that help get people up and on their feet.

 

[Teager]

Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr has been non-committal on pensions for injured soldiers, group argues

A legal truce between the federal government and wounded and injured soldiers over the New Veterans Charter is in danger of falling part, according to a letter sent to Liberals MPs by a lawyer representing the veterans.

The peace agreement of sorts reached by the previous Harper government and the six Afghan war veterans who initiated a class-action law suit over pensions and other benefits is set to expire on May 15, 2016.

The agreement, formally called an "abeyance agreement," put litigation on hold while the two sides tried to reach an out-of-court settlement. That agreement continued after the election of the Liberal government last October.

But in the letter obtained by CBC News, it now appears that justice department lawyers are threatening to return the case to court if the veterans do not drop their litigation entirely and accept an undisclosed settlement proposed by the federal government.

According to the letter, justice department lawyers said that they would attempt to shut down the lawsuit by reviving some of the arguments they initially used during the Harper government era to block the case.

The lawyers argue that Canada does not have a social contract or covenant with veterans, and that a "scheme providing benefits cannot be said to amount to a deprivation merely because claimant views the benefits as insufficient."

The Harper government spent over $700,000 fighting this class-action lawsuit in court.

The plaintiffs have argued in court that the lump-sum payment wounded veterans receive under the new charter — as opposed to the lifetime pension that was previously offered to veterans before 2006 — is inadequate compensation, as they receive less money over the course of a lifetime.

They've also argued that it violates their rights — the right to life, liberty and security of the person — under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Proposed settlement rejected by justice lawyers

The letter, penned by Donald Sorochan, the lawyer representing the class-action lawsuit plaintiffs pro bono, is written to Liberal MPs and former Liberal candidates who were actively involved with the veterans file during the last election campaign.

"At a recent Ottawa meeting on April 11, 2016, we and our clients met with justice counsel, the minister and ministry officials," Sorochan writes.

"We had expected that there would be a discussion with ministry officials … instead of discussion occurring, justice counsel requested us to put a proposal in writing and stated that if the matter was not resolved by our clients dropping the litigation, the Court of Appeal would be invited by the Crown to render its decision."

Sorochan writes that his clients did draft a proposed settlement in writing, but it was rejected by the government on May 9, 2016.

"Our proposal was rejected, but I cannot tell you more than that because of confidentiality constraints insisted upon by the government," the lawyer tells Liberals MPs.

The plaintiffs proposed that the government confirm its commitment to "recognizing the moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation between the people and the government of Canada to provide equitable financial compensation and support services to past and active members of the Armed Forces who have been injured," among other demands.

The Department of Veterans Affairs said Wednesday that it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter as it is before the courts, but said that it will continue its work to "restore critical access to services and support for financial independence."

Frustration with dearth of details

Sorochan said that the Liberal government had campaigned on restoring veterans benefits, but Veterans Minister Kent Hehr has so far been frustratingly non-committal as to the schedule and timing of some of his top priorities, namely implementing lifelong pensions for wounded veterans and improving survivor benefits.

The 2016 budget did allocate more than $4.6 billion over three years to boost support for veterans, namely reopening services offices, increasing the disability award and boosting the earnings loss benefit for injured veterans and expanding access to the permanent impairment allowance — but it was silent on pensions, the biggest sticking point.

The Liberal platform in the last election explicitly promised to restore that benefit. "We will re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans, and increase the value of the disability award," the platform reads.

Sorochan said that his clients cannot be expected to drop their lawsuit against the government while they remain in the dark about some of their most pressing concerns.

"Many veterans were disappointed to see what was not included in the 2016 budget, including the promised lifetime pensions which campaign materials suggested would be introduced in the 2016 fiscal year," Sorochan writes to Liberal MPs.

"While the direction from the government to the minister and the department is very encouraging, as much clarity as possible is sought as to … what reforms are likely to be reflected in the 2017 budget," Sorochan writes. "It is necessary to know these details in order to assess the potential for positive enhancements in the treatment of the representative plaintiffs, class members and veterans generally.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-new-veterans-charter-1.3575845

 

[cowboy628]

Well, now what ABC crowd. Couldn't see the trees through the forest.

 

[Occam]

Well, now what ABC crowd. Couldn't see the trees through the forest.

What does ABC have to do with it?  The Equitas lawsuit is completely independent of the government's plans.  It would be unwise to throw away your ace in the hole until you have it in writing that the lifetime disability pension will be restored.

 

[cowboy628]

I used the term ABC term because all that crowd was adamant that the libs were different and would go back to pension plan ie monthly disability pensions. I find it funny, kind of I told you so. 

 

[Occam]

I used the term ABC term because all that crowd was adamant that the libs were different and would go back to pension plan ie monthly disability pensions. I find it funny, kind of I told you so. 

See post #229 in this thread.

 

[RobA]

I used the term ABC term because all that crowd was adamant that the libs were different and would go back to pension plan ie monthly disability pensions. I find it funny, kind of I told you so. 

Hm. Harper had 10 years to fix this, which he did nothing of the sort.

Trudeau has had six months.  And he's STILL done more then Harper did during his ten years.

The ABC crowd was absolutely correct, and if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't even be TALKING about a return to pensions. We certainly wouldn't have the benefits Trudeau has already given us, re: ELB, PIA, and the DA.

You should be thanking the ABC crowd.

 

[George Wallace]

.......... We certainly wouldn't have the benefits Trudeau has already given us, re: ELB, PIA, and the DA.

I must have missed something. 

 

[PuckChaser]

You mean ELB, PIA and DA which were Tory announcements? Gotcha, thanks ABC. While they're fixing VAC maybe the ABC clowns can figure out how to wear a beret better than a BMQ candidate.

 

[Occam]

You mean ELB, PIA and DA which were Tory announcements? Gotcha, thanks ABC.

I think he meant the improvements to those benefits.

While they're fixing VAC maybe the ABC clowns can figure out how to wear a beret better than a BMQ candidate.

Yeah, because that matters in the grand scheme of taking the government to task over inaction on the veterans file. 

 

[George Wallace]

Yet, we are still seeing the same ole, same ole:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-new-veterans-charter-1.3575845