Liberals Want Injured to Keep Getting Danger Pay Back in Canada

[GAP]

My question revolved around the fact that that you could collect a pension while still serving was surprising to me. I wanted to know how that happened, and it was explained in the next post.

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.

Asked and answered...moral judgements? no, curiosity.

 

[the 48th regulator]

My question revolved around the fact that that you could collect a pension while still serving was surprising to me. I wanted to know how that happened, and it was explained in the next post.

Asked and answered...moral judgements? no, curiosity.

I am going to sound crass, but c'mon.  What is it that surprised you?  Maybe I am out of line, would you please properly elaborate your curiosity.  As a statement like this;

if they capable of drawing the full wages for their rank, would they be eligible a pensionI 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?

Is not a question waiting for an answer, it is a statement of opinion.

dileas

tess

 

[GAP]

You are welcome to think what you like, but I was simply surprised. I had never heard about that before, because as I stated, I thought that if you were able to fulfill your duties, you would not be eligible for a pension.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Thank you for allowing my thoughts,

And although I offer you the same liberty, I question it.

Do you not feel that the soldier is owed any sort of compensation?  Even if he were to carry on with his tasks.

Just answer me that.

dileas

tess

 

[GAP]

Thank you for allowing my thoughts,

And although I offer you the same liberty, I question it.

Do you not feel that the soldier is owed any sort of compensation?  Even if he were to carry on with his taks?

Just anwer me that.

dileas

tess

At no point did I ever state that.

I read something I did not know about, I asked "how could that be?" and was given an answer. Then you waded in after misinterpreting my question, which the answer given to me should have given you a hint because it answered my question totally. Remember I never served in the CF, so there are huge areas I know little or nothing about.

Actually I have no problem with the existing, suggested and future compensation packages...they've earned them.

 

[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?

Then I guess I misinterpretted what you said, and "waded" in.

Mea Culpa, and accept my apology.

dileas

tess

 

[GAP]

None required...what impressed me was that while you were obviously upset (which I couldn't understand why) you allowed me to clearify what I meant and did not mean. All too often I see threads disintegrate becasue people are not willing to listen to the other guy. Thanks

 

[Spring_bok]

Gap asked a legitimate question and he deserves an answer instead of all this drama.  Soldiers with injuries that resulted in some disability but were still capable of serving were assessed and given either a lump sum or a monthly pension for the determined amount of disability.  This was anything from a knee injury or hearing loss to long term results of PTSD. This changed with the new veterans charter in April 2005 so that instead of a pension soldiers were to receive up to $250,000 depending on extent of disability.  Why the change?  I don't know but it could be that it was costing too much money.  There are soldiers serving today receiving as much as 40% of their income and are still deployable.  Is it right? Who knows?  I hope that this is the answer you were looking for GAP.  If anyone wants to wade in with a whole lot of drama, don't bother because I have no more to say on this issue

 

[GAP]

I hope that this is the answer you were looking for GAP. 

Both you and 3rd Horseman cleared up the question for me....thanks

 

[Sub_Guy]

Well it seems that the Toronto Star has taken most of the interesting points brought up on this site and published them.....

http://veritas.mil.ca/showfile.asp?Lang=E&URL=/Clips/National/061008/f01256DN.htm  Link through the din


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160259012546&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

As news comes of the 40th Canadian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan, other military personnel are in a cyber-fight over whether front-line troops should lose their danger pay if they're wounded badly enough to be sent home.

The blogging debate on the http://www.army.ca website follows last week's story of wounded troops forfeiting more than $2,000 a month in risk and hardship allowances once they're no longer "in theatre."

Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, has vowed to find other ways to top up their pay.

Contributors to the blog include both combat and non-combat troops. Many think the existing policy is fine.

"Of course there is a precedent," writes one. "Considering how much the ... Senate gets paid for contributing nothing to the governance of Canada, it's equally logical for the troops not in danger to get danger pay."

Both Hillier and Liberal MP Dan McTeague come under fire. McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East), whose cousin was hurt in Afghanistan last month, calls the pay policy "deplorable."

"Does the fact that the honourable member's own cousin was wounded mean that he is only now learning of this policy?" asks one blogger.

Another adds: "An injured soldier will probably benefit more from his/her injuries via Veterans' Affairs pensions than if they had received the danger pay ... I hate politicians ..."

A third, signing off with a saluting "smiley face," writes of Hillier: "I was watching Canada AM ... the Boss was awesome. He didn't even wait to hear the end of the question before he made it clear that he was getting it sorted out ... I really hope he gets into politics when he finishes his military career."

Someone else retorts: "He is already playing politics. He knows full well what danger pay is and how it is administered. He could have had something done a long time ago ..."

A soldier argues that if his wound doesn't leave a permanent disability, "I am not going to collect a thing ... I get a shiny wound strip (on my uniform) and that's it."

This prompts a reply: "If you think I want money just 'cause I got wounded ... you can go F yourself. I got hurt saving lives."

Other comments include:

"Danger pay is just that ... It should end on departure from the danger."

"It seems as though the Liberals are trying to imply that the soldiers won't be looked after by the government, which is untrue. This is a case of someone trying to use the wrong tool to fix something."

"Visiting my buddy in Winnipeg who had his legs blown off ... he mentioned how fast he got all his payments."

"It trivializes why the bonuses are in place ... for being deployed to a s***hole and risking your neck. They're called bonuses for a reason and people regarding them as lost income ... are missing the point."

 

[the 48th regulator]

Gap asked a legitimate question and he deserves an answer instead of all this drama.  Soldiers with injuries that resulted in some disability but were still capable of serving were assessed and given either a lump sum or a monthly pension for the determined amount of disability.  This was anything from a knee injury or hearing loss to long term results of PTSD. This changed with the new veterans charter in April 2005 so that instead of a pension soldiers were to receive up to $250,000 depending on extent of disability.  Why the change?  I don't know but it could be that it was costing too much money.  There are soldiers serving today receiving as much as 40% of their income and are still deployable.  Is it right? Who knows?  I hope that this is the answer you were looking for GAP.  If anyone wants to wade in with a whole lot of drama, don't bother because I have no more to say on this issue

Thanks for clarifying that Spring_bok sometimes I personally read things the wrong way and "Wade in with Drama".  Maybe I have to realise that the internet is hard to convey things, and that I must look at it without personalizing questions.

I guess when I being one of those soldiers with disabilities that was able to carry on, with difficulties and a pension, I look at it as more of a critical statement as opposed to a legitimate question.

I apologised and we carried on.  However I am glad the drama police arrived to clarify things.  I will PM you the next time I get personal so you can nip me in the bud.

dileas

tess

 

[the 48th regulator]

However, I will say this. 

Put yourself in my shoes and read this statement/question;

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?

Basically it goes against everything I believe in.  Once again, veiled behind a question, a statement is made.  He can not understand if a person is hurt, and still employable, then why is he collecting more money than the next fella.

How many guys will look at that statement and say, frig that, I won't report my pain I will be labled weak.

We are now reducing this to a monetary question, although in the appropriate thread.  And by doing this we are perpetuating the travesty that has been going on a long time, and scaring troops away from the necessary treatment, and compensation, they deserve.

Wouldn't you agree?

dileas

tess

 

[George Wallace]

"apply, Hillier said, to soldiers who've suffered both combat and non-combat injuries."


Now this worries me slightly, I'm not against compensation I am however worried that by including non combat injuries YOU will get the occasional slug who hurts himself to get out f tour but keeps his money.Non combats injuries should be compensated in someway and maybe as we all discussed earlier the whole thing should be lump sum based on injury and how it happened.

I am inclined to believe that the statement was made to include non-combat injuries suffered in theatre, such as vehicle accidents, electrocutions (remember Engrs in Bosnia), accidents on the flight line, etc.  I don't think it was to include all non-combat injuries that may have occured in Canada.

 

[the 48th regulator]

What about injuries incurred during training,

Knees, backs other types.  Para jumps, vehicle accidents, weapons accidents...the list goes on...

dileas

tess

 

[GAP]

What about injuries incurred during training,

Knees, backs other types.  Para jumps, vehicle accidents, weapons accidents...the list goes on...

dileas

tess

How are they dealt with now?

 

[Pearson]

What about injuries incurred during training,

Knees, backs other types.  Para jumps, vehicle accidents, weapons accidents...the list goes on...

dileas

tess

My pension goes back to 1994 when I was released, at the time $176.00 now matured into $225.00. Knees.
May I suggest a split, as many of the last posts have nothing to do with the thread title.

 

[George Wallace]

What about injuries incurred during training,

Knees, backs other types.  Para jumps, vehicle accidents, weapons accidents...the list goes on...

dileas

tess

Actually tess, for most of those that I know of, it has been paid by SISIP or even pensioned by DVA.  My Cpl was making $750 a month, Tax Free, on a DVA pension for his knees.  Why should DND now up his allowances to cover that also?  Heck, he was making more than me.  Should I now have gone out and screw up my knees so that our pays, allowances, and pensions more equally matched our ranks?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Mine was more of a question, or rather a rhetorical one to Hitormiss' statement.

The moment we start to point fingers of who is more deserving, we start to revert back to the medevil days, that complaining is for the weak and those trying to screw the system.

While in the service, if you are injured, then you are handled either by SISSIP, or the DVA, period.

Does not matter where, when, or how.  What we do have to do, is to repair both of those organizations so that they start to perform as they should.  This will hopefully try to filter out the liars, and provide the help needed by the injured, in a TIMELY manner.

dileas

tess

 

[GAP]

Mine was more of a question, or rather a rhetorical one to Hitormiss' statement.

The moment we start to point fingers of who is more deserving, we start to revert back to the medevil days, that complaining is for the weak and those trying to screw the system.

While in the service, if you are injured, then you are handled either by SISSIP, or the DVA, period.

Does not matter where, when, or how.  What we do have to do, is to repair both of those organizations so that they start to perform as they should.  This will hopefully try to filter out the liars, and provide the help needed by the injured, in a TIMELY manner.

dileas

tess

In refering to the name of the thread, then any changes that come about should be logically handled through these two organizations, depending on which one applies?

 

[the 48th regulator]

SISSIP, or the DVA, period

These two here?

dileas

tess