Liberals Want Injured to Keep Getting Danger Pay Back in Canada

[cplcaldwell]

Reproduced from the Globe and Mail at this link

under the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act , RSC cripes, I'm getting tired of typing that...


My emphasis and saucy commentary added

Wounded soldiers to get more pay, O'Connor says
Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Friday he has ordered top staff to look at providing better pay to wounded soldiers.

Mr. O'Connor said it does not seem fair that injured soldiers do not get some sort of replacement for so-called “danger pay.”

“I've asked the senior military staff and department staff to look how we treat wounded soldiers from a compensation point of view and they're moving quickly to look at that challenge,” Mr. O'Connor said Friday.

Under current rules, when troops are wounded and removed from a combat zone, they lose operational allowances of more than $2,000 a month.

The effects of that are being felt keenly now that Canadian soldiers are getting wounded on a regular basis in Afghanistan.

General Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said he heard about the problem last week and intends to fix it.

“I've got a lot of very smart, big-brained people (ed. where the hell did he find them?) now figuring how we're going to do that, but we're going to look after those soldiers,” he said.

Gen. Hillier was not specific about what will be done to change the current practice.

 

[George Wallace]

And yes, the allowances/benefits for each position in-theatre are already budgeted for but this does not make the paying of them to an injured soldier who has been removed from theatre an 'already covered' or 'paid for' area. The allowances are paid out to individuals based on their POSITION in-theatre. For those that are injured and removed, how do we go about paying the back-up soldier who deploys from Canada and replaces them in that position their allowances if those allotted allowances are being paid to the injured?

Very good points, that should clarify any questions about "well the funds have already been allocated".  If they have been 'allocated', they have been 'allocated' for one individual, not two, so the injured party leaving the danger area gives up that 'alloted Danger Pay' to his replacement.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Very good points, that should clarify any questions about "well the funds have already been allocated".  If they have been 'allocated', they have been 'allocated' for one individual, not two, so the injured party leaving the danger area gives up that 'alloted Danger Pay' to his replacement.

That is a very good point by Vern, that I overlooked.  The money has been budgeted by DND, for a slot, not a person.

Again, we must no focus our attenion on the DVA, and SISIP.

dileas

tess

 

[Loachman]

Very good points, that should clarify any questions about "well the funds have already been allocated".

Are they not re-allocated to the replacement pers?

Edit: Oh, yeah, perhaps if I'd read that post properly...

 

[warrickdll]

Maybe a simple solution would be say "Right.  You are going to A'stan for x months.  That equals y dollars.  You have a two options:
(A) take 1/x amount of y every month
(b) take all of x upon repatriation"
If a member gets wounded on day one or on the last day, they get paid the HARDSHIP and IN THEATRE bonuses (boni?) irrespective if they are "over there" or not.  It's a lump sum, payable either all at once at repatriation or in slices, once a month.

Is this too simple?

Discussing (rehashing) specifically the issue of tour bonuses, and not what occurs in the years following being wounded, there are a few points:

- Tour length is not consistent. A soldier who is wounded on day one of a 9 month tour should not receive more money than a soldier wounded on day one of a 6 month tour, or a 3 month tour. In Theatre bonuses are for In Theatre time, not expected In Theatre time.

- Where the wounded convalesce is not consistent. A soldier who is wounded and is recovering at home should not receive the same pay as someone still in a foreign hospital, or still in range of enemy rockets. This is where sticking with Overseas bonuses and In Theatre bonuses works for those who are still Overseas and still In Theatre.

- The cause of the medical conditions is not consistent. An medically evacuated soldier shot by the enemy should not be paid more than A soldier who is injured overseas because their vehicle ran off the road or a soldier who was shot from an ND - they are all in pain as a result of what occurred while on operations. The wound stripe (or whatever may be in the future) is all that is required to distinguish the wounded from the injured.


In short: Pay should be equitable. A soldier convalescing in Canada should not be paid the same as a soldier convalescing in Afghanistan. And, a soldier convalescing in Afghanistan should not be paid more than a soldier in the field in Afghanistan.


There are 2 solutions (possibly combined) that may be more acceptable:

1. Regardless of how much tour time is left; pay out the bonuses for 1 month to those medically evacuated (make it SOP)

2. Have a Convalescent Allowance for those medically evacuated to bridge from while still in the CF until released and VAC takes over (or until recovered and returned to duty).


I'd like to stress the difference between pay and bonuses (others have mentioned it already) - expecting to keep receiving bonuses is probably not standard (unless you are a political or CEO hack who is Entitled to their Entitlements ).

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

As is becoming apparent, the media has misdirected its hyperbole and (IMHO) we've seen a knee-jerk reaction as a result.  The more recent posts here are putting the problem in the right context - this is a DVA issue and not one that belongs with the operational CF.

Simply extending operational allowances opens a huge can of worms, as it invites inequality between injured soldiers.  Hardship and Risk Allowances vary from mission to mission (indeed, they can vary between individual locations on a mission) and are under constant review.

For example, a soldier wounded at, say, an FOB, might well be getting a higher benefit than a soldier wounded in an IED attack in Kabul - even after arrival in Canada.  They're both wounded, both living under the same conditions back home, yet one soldier receives more money simply because of where he was physically in theatre.  What happens if the HA and RA drop?  Do benefits back home drop?  Worse, what about a soldier wounded in Bosnia (there are still plenty of mines strewn about) in 2006, where the benefits are comparatively miniscule?  Do we bump his allowances up to Afghanistan level?   Lots of questions, few answers.

Again, I am firmly of the opinion that (1) these are benefits for being in theatre, are specifically tailored to operational circumstances and that they should be discontinued on redeployment - for whatever reason; (2)  there are still issues with how DVA deals with injured soldiers and that this is where we should direct our efforts; and (3) soldiers should never view in-theatre allowances and benefits as an "entitlement" or as "income".  We get paid for doing our jobs.  The bonuses are just that.

 

[George Wallace]

2. Have a Convalescent Allowance for those medically evacuated to bridge from while still in the CF until released and VAC takes over (or until recovered and returned to duty).

Just to clarify something.  You do not have to be 'Released' to collect a pension from VAC.  You can still get a pension from VAC and continue to serve, depending on the extent of your injuries.  The example being the many who are serving with knee injuries and currently receiving VAC pensions.  

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some more on the reconsideration, shared under fair dealings provision....

Military to consider ways to help soldiers who lose danger pay 
Andrew Mayeda, CanWest News Service, 6 Oct 06
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=2646eeb7-6806-4399-b5b0-0030891f65f1&k=22007

Under pressure from reports of wounded Canadian soldiers who stopped receiving danger pay, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor said Friday he is looking at ways to ensure injured soldiers don’t suffer a drop in income when they return home.

O’Connor said military and defence-department staff are “moving quickly” to find a solution.

“We have to make sure that our wounded soldiers are looked after completely while they’re in the service and if some of them leave the service, to look after them after their service. But we’ve got to make sure they’re treated fairly,” he said.

The Ottawa Citizen reported this week that, under Department of National Defence policy, even injured soldiers lose their “high-risk allowance” when they leave a war zone such as Afghanistan.

Other news organizations then followed with portraits of soldiers who face a pay cut on top of a months of recovery.

The revelations prompted sharp criticism from opposition MPs, who blasted the government for its lack of compassion.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague has been one of the most vocal critics, calling the policy a “very shabby way to treat our soldiers.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday he understands the "source of concern" about the matter.

"Obviously, given the kind of risks our soldiers are facing, the kind of leadership they’re taking on in Afghanistan, (and) the pride we feel in them, we want to make sure that we have a full range of programs to support them," he said at a news conference in Calgary.

"But we want to make sure that whatever series of pay or compensation arrangements we have are fair to everyone involved in the exercise."

Soldiers serving in Afghanistan receive a tax-free allowance of $2,111 a month on top of a salary of $4,069 to $5,190. But once they return to Canada, even if wounded, their danger pay ends.

O’Connor said the government plans to retain the general policy on danger pay, which was implemented by the Liberals in the 1990s.

But he said staff are looking at measures to fix the “anomaly” of injured soldiers seeing their compensation drop. “From a high risk point of view it’s fair because if you’re in high risk you get this allowance and if you’re out of high risk you don’t,” he said. “But it doesn’t seem to be fair from the point of view that if you’re wounded before your tour is up that somehow you lose some of your benefits.  So we’re looking at that.”

O’Connor said it’s possible soldiers could receive another form of compensation in lieu of danger pay. He couldn’t say how much such a measure would cost, nor whether it would be retroactive.

Earlier in the day, Canada’s top soldier also vowed to find a remedy. “We’re going to fix it and we’re going to fix it quickly. I’ve got a bunch of very smart, big-brained people and we’re going to figure out how to look after those soldiers,” Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier told a television network.

 

[the 48th regulator]

O’Connor said the government plans to retain the general policy on danger pay, which was implemented by the Liberals in the 1990s.

But he said staff are looking at measures to fix the “anomaly” of injured soldiers seeing their compensation drop. “From a high risk point of view it’s fair because if you’re in high risk you get this allowance and if you’re out of high risk you don’t,” he said. “But it doesn’t seem to be fair from the point of view that if you’re wounded before your tour is up that somehow you lose some of your benefits.  So we’re looking at that.”

O’Connor said it’s possible soldiers could receive another form of compensation in lieu of danger pay. He couldn’t say how much such a measure would cost, nor whether it would be retroactive.

Earlier in the day, Canada’s top soldier also vowed to find a remedy. “We’re going to fix it and we’re going to fix it quickly. I’ve got a bunch of very smart, big-brained people and we’re going to figure out how to look after those soldiers,” Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier told a television network.

Could this be the DVA fix we were bantering about today?

Hmmm, maybe those two are members of this site!

Oi Armyvern, are you sure that you are not Hillier's nom de plume??  Let's head over to the the photo contest thread and see some proof...

dileas

tess

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm kinda impressed by the speed between first breaking story and resolution - this can happen when the military is a priority.

Good luck all who need more help than you're getting!

 

[3rd Horseman]

3rd Horsemen you didn't read my initial post did you, If the wound will not cause permanent disability you do not get anything. If you need to get your wounds pack for 3 months but those wounds are essentially cosmetic you will get evaced but guess what, you don't get a VAC pension in fact you get squat. See where the argument lies, many wounded are removed from theater because their wounds require more care then the Role 3 can provide but they do not incur long term disability to the soldier so essential as was pointed out they are cut off.

Actually their is a cosmetic DVA pension for disfigurement.
Also the VAC pension is "a gift of Canada for pain and suffering" it can be given for pain and suffering to the recovering and then reduced later as the patient regains capability. This was the angle I was talking about earlier.

Also VAC does need to be at the hospital bed on arrival, it is their job as was the activity of DVA in WW1 WW2 and Korea. It is only of late that DVA has figured it could sit back and wait for the troops to call them. This is changing it has been argued at the Government level and at DVA and appears to be being resolved. This resolution combined with the expedited hearing gets the compensation rolling within 45 days at the latest.

 

[Gunner]

It is only of late that DVA has figured it could sit back and wait for the troops to call them. This is changing it has been argued at the Government level and at DVA and appears to be being resolved. This resolution combined with the expedited hearing gets the compensation rolling within 45 days at the latest.

I recant my comments on DVA, I hear through the grapevine they are not as proactive as they should be.  This is very unfortunate as considerable effort was expended by the CF/DND to integrate them into our overall process.  Watch and shoot (that means wait and see, not wait and shoot the DVA fellow  ) 

 

[tomahawk6]

This struck me as being a wedge issue by the Liberals. They can pretend support for the troops at the sametime that they attempt to create a wedge between the government and the military. Once a wounded soldier is no longer in theater the special pays should stop. The government has every responsibility for the care of its wounded soldiers until they can be returned to duty or be given a medical retirement/disability pension.

 

[Armymedic]

Sorry to jump in late.

I think:

the current regulations ref overseas allowances are correct,
this is a political issue,
troops going over are not blind (if they were briefed properly) to what would happen to their allowances if they are returned to Canada early.
To change the current policy would be a mistake and a knee jerk reaction to what is happening in the media.
If a policy needs to be changed, it is the injury insurance we receive or should receive.

 

[COBRA-6]

+1 SMMT

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[GAP]

Just to clarify something.  You do not have to be 'Released' to collect a pension from VAC.  You can still get a pension from VAC and continue to serve, depending on the extent of your injuries.  The example being the many who are serving with knee injuries and currently receiving VAC pensions.  

Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?

As to the speed of the decision regarding remuneration, simple. The government is not going to give the opposition the opportunity to hurt them politically for such piddling amounts.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?

Gap,

  It was a pre 99 thing, only for those wounded or injured in Special Duty Areas and was a benifit for that service. After 99 they opened it up to everyone which IMHO was a huge mistake. Too many benifits for the wounded in battle were given to all and that just watered down the importance of it. As to why they did it pre 99, it was for pain and suffering. How they got it through that all should get it is beyond me. It was wrong but that is the way it is now.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?

As to the speed of the decision regarding remuneration, simple. The government is not going to give the opposition the opportunity to hurt them politically for such piddling amounts.

??,

Now we are entering some sort of moral debate...Why not strip any recognition what so ever too.  Why the purple heart, or wounded stripe. In fact, take away their medal too, they did not serve the complete tour.  Just because they had half their head blown off, and parts of their body in their lap means jack.  They may be deaf, Blind and in pain, not to mention the mental anguish, but if they can still work eff giving them any type of compensation.  Yep I like your analogy.

I am with you GAP....

dileas

tess

 

[GAP]

??,

Now we are entering some sort of moral debate...Why not strip any recognition what so ever too.  Why the purple heart, or wounded stripe. In fact, take away their medal too, they did not serve the complete tour.  Just because they had half their head blown off, and parts of their body in their lap means jack.  They may be deaf, Blind and in pain, not to mention the mental anguish, but if they can still work eff giving them any type of compensation.  Yep I like your analogy.

I am with you GAP....

dileas

tess

Hmmm....I'm missing something here...did I miss a page or something? I am not sure what you are refering to...

 

[the 48th regulator]

Not to wish ill will on  someone, but why, if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pension. I can see it being a point of consideration when they retire, but if you can do the work to stay in CF, why the bonus?

Page 8,

dileas

tess