• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Injured Vet pushing for overhaul on VAC

"Witness tampering is a serious offence," said McKay. "By instructing Cpl. Kirkland to stay 'within his arcs' his commanding officers were instructing him to withhold information from the committee, making it virtually impossible for parliamentarians to understand the issues that ill and injured members of the Canadian Forces face."

The Canadian military claims it was only offering communications guidance when it issued those instructions
, but both Opposition parties say they look at it as an attempt to stifle the flow of information, particularly the kind that embarrasses the government.
....


Does this not look like the Opposition Parties are looking more for "rumour and innuendo" than the actual facts in order to smear the Government?  I would think that one should only talk about what they know, not speculate on what rumours abound, in such a hearing.  Is that not good advice to give?  Doesn't say much for the Opposition Members to want otherwise. 
 
George Wallace said:
Does this not look like the Opposition Parties are looking more for "rumour and innuendo" than the actual facts in order to smear the Government? 
Some might say that's all some Opposition likes to do.
 
SISIP and VAC are becoming more of an issue again. Once the cuts began Priority Hiring turned into a farce.  Without that a top up pension is indicated.  Injured vets face a real decline in income due to their decreased abilities. Scraping by does not exactly sound fair to me. To go from 55k to security guard seems like an abrogation of responsibility and a huge waste of human potential.
 
If I was an injured vet I who has been released I'd be looking for a lawyer.
 
To what end?

It will be interesting to see how the newest class-action goes, that may set a tone for future engagements.

But myself, as an injured, soon to be released vet, I can't afford any lawyer and certainly not the type of lawyer that can take a case such as this to the Supreme Court. I've seen the amount of the bill that had to be paid to the lawyers in the SISIP case.

I'm not upset over the amount of my pension. I'm getting my 2%/year blah blah blah. What I am upset about is twofold:
1) The lump sum payments are a joke. For me, the math works out to over $1M in lost wages. I got $56K. I know I'm preaching to the choir on that one.

2) The inability of the CAF to employ, in any fashion, those that have been injured. I've worked with more than a few US amputees that were still serving their country, in uniform. Why can't we do better that way?

And don't tell me it's about smaller numbers, deployability, we're generalists bullcrap.

It's about a lack of imagination.
 
Wookilar said:
It It's about a lack of imagination.

I will agree there - and leave it at that.

Everyone should remember that each case is different, and that there is no cookie cutter solution to veteran's issues.

 
Jim Seggie said:
I will agree there - and leave it at that.

Everyone should remember that each case is different, and that there is no cookie cutter solution to veteran's issues.

I agree as well. There are a number of british amputees who even deployed as well.
 
This is a link to a blog with an e-mail from Harold Leduc titled NVC and other problems? Mr. Leduc is a former military member and served on the VRAB. Good read with a lot of good points.

http://jimnewton.blogspot.ca/2013/06/nvc-and-other-problems-from-harold-leduc.html?spref=fb
 
Now that there is a new MND do the statements of the previous MND still stand on medically releasing soldiers?
 
Yes, as they are a matter of public record.

However, the amount of calendar days that those statements hold for could conceivably be over now that he is no longer in the chair.
 
Teager said:
Now that there is a new MND do the statements of the previous MND still stand on medically releasing soldiers?
If The Canadian Press is to be believed, yes - highlights mine:
Gravely injured troops are being booted from the military before they qualify for a pension, despite assurances to the contrary from the Harper government. 

A former reserve combat engineer was let go last Friday on a medical discharge after begging for months to remain until hitting the 10-year mark.  Cpl. David Hawkins is about a year shy of being eligible for an indexed pension, but was released because his post traumatic stress means he is unable to deploy overseas. 

Among those also leaving is Cpl. Glen Kirkland. His plea to remain in the army last June was answered by former defence minister Peter MacKay with an a pledge he could stay until September 2015 — and that no members are released until they are ready.  But the offer turned out to be exclusive to Kirkland, who chose within the last few days to leave rather than be given special treatment. 

"I joined as a member of a team, as a family," Kirkland said in an interview from Shilo, Man.  "So, when I was offered an opportunity when no one else was, it just goes against everything I joined for."  He will be formally discharged in March
...."
 
By: Murray Brewster The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Oct 29 2013

OTTAWA—Gravely injured troops are being booted from the military before they qualify for a pension, despite assurances to the contrary from the Harper government.

A former reserve combat engineer was let go last Friday on a medical discharge after begging for months to remain until hitting the 10-year mark.

Cpl. David Hawkins is about a year shy of being eligible for an indexed pension, but was released because his post-traumatic stress means he is unable to deploy overseas.

Among those also leaving is Cpl. Glen Kirkland. His plea to remain in the army last June was answered by former defence minister Peter MacKay with a pledge he could stay until September 2015 — and that no members are released until they are ready.

Featured Video Close .
More Video
New Brunswick & Saskatchewan premiers tout west-east pipeline
Harper needs to face up to Mike Duffy scandal: NDP
Some stakeholders upbeat about Canada-EU trade deal

UN official says Canada's aboriginal communities in crisis

But the offer turned out to be exclusive to Kirkland, who chose within the last few days to leave rather than be given special treatment.

“I joined as a member of a team, as a family,” Kirkland said in an interview from Shilo, Man. “So, when I was offered an opportunity when no one else was, it just goes against everything I joined for.”

He will be formally discharged in March.

Kirkland was left with damaged hearing, post-traumatic stress, and injuries that affect his insulin levels, all the result of the 2008 Taliban bombing that killed three of his comrades.

Both he and Hawkins do not meet the military’s universality of service rule, which requires members to be fit to deploy at a moment’s notice. They also fall under a system whereby a member must serve 10 years to qualify for an indexed pension. If they don’t, they’re refunded their contributions.

Hawkins, from London, Ont., spent his tour between September 2008 and April 2009 as a member of a quick-reaction force of soldiers called out of a forward operating base to deal with suicide attacks and roadside bombings.

The stress started creeping up on him overseas, and he went from sleeping in a light armoured vehicle, ready to combat the Taliban, to sleeping in his truck near London, Ont., because it was the only place he felt comfortable.

Hawkins was prescribed 13 medications for his disorder while being processed at the military’s operational stress injury centre. He said he wanted to remain in the Forces to re-qualify as a firefighter once he felt better.

But there is a time limit for recovery under universality of service and he was eventually given an ultimatum.

“They were just trying to push me through the system, even though I had told them I wasn’t ready,” Hawkins said. “I was told, ‘No, you’re going to have to go back to work, or we can drop your funding right now.’”

As a reservist, Hawkins faces a different set of entitlements and rules than Kirkland, who is a member of the regular force. Now that he is out of the military, Hawkins is eligible for benefits under Veterans Affairs, including retraining.

But he says his PTSD diagnosis will be a black mark as he looks for work.

Last spring, MacKay was emphatic in the House of Commons that no one would be forced out.

“In fact, all injured members are not released from the military until they are prepared to do so. Until they are prepared for release, they work with members of the Canadian Forces on their transition plan, and when it is appropriate for their families and they are ready to make a shift into the private sector,” he said on June 11.

A spokeswoman for newly appointed Defence Minister Rob Nicholson said Hawkins’ case is under review.

“We thank Cpl. Hawkins for his service and sacrifice for Canada,” Julie Di Mambro said in an email. “We are aware of the issue and are looking into it further.”

Kirkland said he is disillusioned by his experience with the government, and by what happened to Hawkins.

“I don’t have very much faith in the politicians who are pulling the strings,” he said.

“There needs to be some serious change. I mean, who would join? Would you tell your kids to join knowing that if they get disabled they won’t be looked after?”

The Conservative government has poured millions of dollars into veterans programs, and recently underscored its commitment to ex-soldiers in the throne speech

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/10/29/injured_canadian_troops_booted_from_military_before_qualifying_for_pension.html
 
Teager said:
Last spring, MacKay was emphatic in the House of Commons that no one would be forced out.  “In fact, all injured members are not released from the military until they are prepared to do so. Until they are prepared for release, they work with members of the Canadian Forces on their transition plan, and when it is appropriate for their families and they are ready to make a shift into the private sector,” he said on June 11.
But this cannot be the answer.  Better mechanisms are required to support and encourage that shift to the private sector; that is the answer.  Ensuring the right support is provided for injuries is part of the anwer.  Maybe guaranteed employment in the public service could be part of the answer (but getting into the fine details may show this to be unsupportable). 
 
MCG said:
But this cannot be the answer.  Better mechanisms are required to support and encourage that shift to the private sector; that is the answer.  Ensuring the right support is provided for injuries is part of the anwer.  Maybe guaranteed employment in the public service could be part of the answer (but getting into the fine details may show this to be unsupportable).

I agree that's not the answer. If a guy gets inujured on deployment in year 3, what? Keep him on light duties/JPSU/whatever for the sole reason of reaching 10 years in and getting a pension? What if he gets injured playing hockey as part of unit PT? Also eligible for 2, 4, 6, however many years of full salary until he's "ready"? And what does "ready" mean, if being "ready" = "cutting off my secure paycheque"?

But that's where VA used to step in. If CAF broke you, yes, CAF would release you if you couldn't meet UoS any more. But you wouldn't be out on the street, you'd start getting your VA pension instead. IMO a huge reason behind this is the switch to lump sum payment.
 
I agree that a major part of the issue is the lump sum award. I am in the process of medically releasing. I have several CF related injuries illness. However any one of them on their own will  not categorize me as "Totally and Permanently Disabled" under the new system.  So if I am understanding how the system works correctly I will get up 75% of my pre- release salary for up to two years to go to school/training and then I'll be on my own. Working a five day 40 hour week will be very difficult if not impossible for me once released. At least as it stands now. I am working half days and that is a task in itself.
The biggest stressor for me is not finding employment, its keeping it. I doubt many employers will tolerate the amount of time that I will miss because of my injuries and illnesses. So more than likely I will bounce from one low paying job to the next.
I am fortunate enough that I will have a 25+ year CF pension but with young children still living at home that won't be enough. The max lump sum award of 300000 (rounded up) would allow for a monthly payment of 1136.00 / month until age 65 in my case, which is not too bad at my age. But for someone who is in their 20's, say 25, if they get the max amount of 300000 and live to 65 the monthly payment would only be  625.00 / month, plus no CF pension. That's not enough considering only the most severely disabled get the max award.
There are many jobs within the CF that personnel that are injured can do. Not just RMS jobs either. A lot of the PS jobs could be done by injured serving members. When the government cuts PS jobs they could be filled by an injured CF member because the job and requirement are still there. I know that the unions would have a field day with that. But it sure beats having someone hanging around the CF until they can get a pension. Most people that are injured want to work it is just the universality of service restricts them from staying in the CF.
In PS and private sectors if you are injured at work they do their best to accommodate that person. They even will transfer that person to a different line of work with the same pay.
Why can't the CF do this for it's injured members?
 
stokerwes said:
In PS and private sectors if you are injured at work they do their best to accommodate that person. They even will transfer that person to a different line of work with the same pay.

Sometimes the pre-accident/illness job can not be permanently modified to accommodate the employee and allow him/her to perform the "Essential Duties" of the job.

In that case, a "Suitable Job" must be found.

The important language in the Collective Agreement is, "If the pre-injury rate of pay is higher than the relocated position rate, then the pre-injury rate is to be maintained. It is understood that the pre-injury rate is subject to all wage increases negotiated."

 
The CF does attempt to accomodate members.  Career review boards identify whether accomodation is possible.  If that is not possible, members may be permitted to change trades, provided they meet the requirements for the new trade.

But the CF cannot accomodate an unlimited number of people; and those periods of retention cannot be infinite.  Military service is not a right.
 
stokerwes said:
There are many jobs within the CF that personnel that are injured can do. Not just RMS jobs either. A lot of the PS jobs could be done by injured serving members. When the government cuts PS jobs they could be filled by an injured CF member because the job and requirement are still there. I know that the unions would have a field day with that. But it sure beats having someone hanging around the CF until they can get a pension. Most people that are injured want to work it is just the universality of service restricts them from staying in the CF.
In PS and private sectors if you are injured at work they do their best to accommodate that person. They even will transfer that person to a different line of work with the same pay.
Why can't the CF do this for it's injured members?

Exactly - in PS and private sector.

You can't remove UoS from the CAF requirement, because removing that removes...well, the necessity of having actual CAF members. After all, many if not most of the jobs done in garrison can be done by civvies, right? Forget PS, they could be done by contracted civvies way cheaper, since the government wouldn't be responsible for their pensions, or their health care for that matter. There's work that keeps mbrs theoretically prepared to deploy, but if you've already said they can't deploy, all that's left is work a civvie contractor could do, and for much cheaper.

Once you de-link UoS from being a CAF member requirement, you've admitted that you don't actually need the CAF member at all. At least, not as a CAF member.
 
Nudibranch said:
Exactly - in PS and private sector.

You can't remove UoS from the CAF requirement, because removing that removes...well, the necessity of having actual CAF members. After all, many if not most of the jobs done in garrison can be done by civvies, right? Forget PS, they could be done by contracted civvies way cheaper, since the government wouldn't be responsible for their pensions, or their health care for that matter. There's work that keeps mbrs theoretically prepared to deploy, but if you've already said they can't deploy, all that's left is work a civvie contractor could do, and for much cheaper.

Once you de-link UoS from being a CAF member requirement, you've admitted that you don't actually need the CAF member at all. At least, not as a CAF member.

You kind of lost me on this.  I do agree that Universality of Service does have some problems.  It is written in "Black and White with not shades of Grey".  My wife, who is in the PS, can't understand why the CAF has a compulsory Retirement age of 60 (now), while the rest of the PS and nation do not.  To tell you the truth, it may be a good question, if you look at some 60 year olds who are in good health and physically fit, capable to still fill some roles in the CAF; and the 30 year olds who have been heavy chain smokers and drinkers and look twice their age.  Of course this is a general statement, as not all 60 year olds are still in good health and physically fit, nor are all 30 year olds heavy drinkers and chain smokers.  There are of course those who are the exceptions, and Regulations written in "Black and White with not shades of Grey" leave no leeway to any exceptions to the rule.  Is it worth pondering?  Perhaps?  Perhaps not?
 
Back
Top