VAC Return to Lifetime Pensions Discussion

[Teager]

This comes from Facebook don't have a link at the moment. There has been some disagreement with the Pension and the CVA. Here is an update from Major Ret Campbell.


Please Share
Mark C.
THE PENSION UPDATE

I recently attended the latest gathering of the Minister of Veterans' Affairs {MVA) Policy Committee in Ottawa on 31 Aug 16. Significant progress was made in terms of further refining/defining the Committee's recommended Financial Compensation model for the Minister's decision and subsequent efforts within Cabinet and Treasury Board. All done with a view towards eliminating the current financial gap that exists between recipients of the former Pension Act (PA) versus those disenfranchised under the New Veterans Charter (NVC}. We are confident that with further adjustment to offsets/clawbacks, the propsed financial compensation model will be more generous than any previous package in terms of net income. We are proposing a compensation model that is in everyone's best interests and that is fair/equitable to all.

Unfortunately, it has now become abundantly clear that one dissenting member of the MVAC's Policy Committee is dead set against the otherwise unanimously recommended proposals of the majority. This individual is currently ignoring the committee's non-disclosure agreement to cast single-sided aspersions against the work of the committee and even the motivations of is volunteer members. This is all extremely distastefull and unfortunate, but I for one will not stand for a rogue individual compromising the incredibly important work of the all-volunteer Policy Committee simply because he self-styles himself as some sort of "singular saviour of the veteran cause". Ego aside, there is qute frankly little apparent substance in this individual's ceaseless insistence upon a different path. "Equality in National Recognition of Sacrifice" is the buzz-phrase he tosses around with no real meaning and no coherent basis in achievable reality - at least not as proposed by the dissenter. However, this is simply my equally personal view, and you are therefore free to side however you see fit.

I believe that the Policy Committee is recommending a reasonable, affordable and achievable solution to the problem of multiple, modern-day veteran compensation schemes within Canada. You will all be able to judge for yourselves when the recommendations and proposals of the Policy Committee are briefed to the next Stakeholder's Summit on 5/6 October 2016. Until then, I suggest that we all turn down the rhetoric and cease casting personal aspersions based on what amounts to simple disagreement between a Committee of 10 Veteran advisors and one dissenting member.

No matter their other interests or affiliations/representations, all of the Policy Committee members are CAF veterans volunteering their time (and their family time) for the best interests of the Canadian Veteran community. As such, all members of the Policy Advisory Committee are equally deserving of respect and "air time". It is NOT a venue for ego-challenged members to quantify the comparative value of their inuries based on severity and cirucumstance. "Dick-measuring" in this instance is both unecessary and ultimately ill-advised. The only people it pleases as those who would see fit to deny Canada's veterans their due. This, among other reasons, is why the in-fighting must cease. It simply feeds those who would do us harm.

FWIW, I stand by the recommendations that I and my fellow veterans on the Policy Advisory Committee have developed. We honestly believe that our recommended meaures represent a fair and achievable way ahead for both the injured veteran and the taxpayer.. This is not to say that our recommendations will be adopted in whole or part, as the government has other imperatives to consider at the same time. All we can do is put the best possible recommendations forward to our elected officials for their consideration and action.

 

[Lightguns]

Well, that's gonna start a fine internet discussion......


Policy Advisory Group Members

•Michael Blais, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
•Major (Retired) Mark Campbell
•Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
•Michel Houle, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
•Brigadier-General Michael Jorgensen, Canadian Armed Forces
•Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald
•Luc O’Bomsawin, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
•Brigadier General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
•Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew
•Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion

 

[Teager]

I believe the real discussion will come on Oct 5/6 when everyone can see the recommendations that have been made. The real question will be will the government adopt those recommendations?

 

[Lightguns]

Funny, how I knew exactly who he spoke of.  Here's the other side of the story, he is calling for a Protest action on 4 October against the committee:

NVC- Pension Act promises - Smoke, mirrors, bait and switch.

Turning point.

I am in consultation mode, feeling betrayed on principle at a whole new level. Not sure we should remain on advisory level, please comment yeah or nayyy below.

I founded the CVA on Equality in recognition of National Sacrifice standards and as a proud Royal Canadian -RCR I can remember back this past decade, watching the war in TV, struck with the horror of recognizing names as Operation Medusa passed. Since 2010, as an advocate, I would bear personal witness to the great sacrifice shared by widows, mother, father, spouse and children and extended families when the catastrophic consequences consumed a life or imparted war time wounds on mind, soul and body and was profoundly disgusted that, with the support of the nations stakeholders, the disrespectful pain and suffering award replaced pension for the wounded and the previous pensions for wife and child eliminated.

We discussed the Lump Sum Award today, once again, there was consensus that the award was sufficient and I was reminded that it was the major stakeholders platform in the past to compare the lump sum award to tort law. I recommended that the LSA be at least raised to the 500 thousand dollar threshold, that this would differentiate between negligence at the work site and getting shot.... but I was over ruled. I think I even heard one person laugh. They do not respect your sacrifice enough to fight for the ideal that national sacrifice is more worthy than negligence at the work site, that getting blown up or taking a bullet for queen and country is no different work site NEGLIGENCE, that you, my friends, your sacrifice is equitable only a tort law statistic.

We are the only dissenting position. I believe that equating national sacrifice on the killing fields of Afghanistan to an negligence injury at a safety regulated workplace in Canada disrespects national sacrifice, that the bar mist much higher, that it is not a money grab and was profoundly disappointed that there was no support. ZERO!

Re establish the life time pension. Lets be clear, their was only one lifetime pension to e-establish an the promise was clear and supported by the opportunity of choice between what was or the LSA. I believe the Pain and Suffering Award as was provided to me should be accorded to those who fought on the Panjawaii as decade ago and the multitudes of those who have been wounded since and as Founder of the CVA fighting on the equality issues, we have consistently presented a platform that restored the balance through choice of a revised Lump Sum Award -now denied- or the option to return to the existing provisions accorded through the Pension Act through a simple harmonized approach that would provide monthy payments when the enforced LSA expired through monthly increment and continue to life.

I asked fo this option to be put forward... denied.

There must be equality in recognition o national sacrifice and, having fought so hard at that level, having explained exactly what equality meant to the PM and dozens of MPs, after attaining promises at the highest levels, going to Trenton last year to bear witness to Mr Trudeau's grandoise announcements....

Bullshit!

The promise to RE-ESTABLISH the life time pension has been corrupted, there will be choice, just not to what we were led to believe prior to the election.

BAIT and SWITCH!

If you were accorded a LUMP SUM AWARD, if you believe that you were promised the choice to return too the pension act, to have the same standard of respect as do I and thousands of other veterans? Did you think that you sacrifice was equal to mine? That your wife's pain and sacrifice was equal to mine. Did you think that a small pension for your kids as was for mine and thousands of other disabled mom and dad vets would be yours?

THINK AGAIN....

I have fought, my God, I have fought so hard to have our voices heard on equality, to ensure those of The RCR to whom I passed the torch and others who proudly carried the banner into battle would have the same level of respect for their sacrifice as do I and everyone else prior to 2006.

But it is the same old, same old...

AS the ONLY stakeholder at the table, then and now, that fought for equality on this issue, I can tell you there will never be consensus support at the Policy Advisory Group, they do not not support the equality principles the CVA and/or, I suspect, want to use this opportunity to create THEIR version of the life time pension, not one that was promised, not one that we have fought so hard for these past five years without wavering.

You must understand, after the teleconference today, I/the CVA will always stand alone at the table.

If I return to it, frankly. Same old, same old, whats the point when there so many contesting equality and, get this, now declaring a portion of the pain and suffering award is income replacement and must be taken into consideration for future economic support.

I hope, however, that we will not stand alone on Parliament Hill October 4th or at Riding offices across the nation October 4th.

I do not like being lied to. Or being used as a prop on a scooter.

I will consider resigning position on Advisory over the weekend, I am not keen on having my name or the Canadian Veterans Advocacy's name being sucked in the dross of consensus when we are adamantly opposed. Feel free to offer any advise on this level.

This will be a political decision, the decision will be rendered there, not at the advisory level.

This is where we must fight

OCTOBER 4TH PROTEST...

I will rep a new ops order this weekend, first they dick us over on SISIP ELB equality now, with the "same old same old" golly gee, what did we Reeealllly mean, they are going to dick up over on THE promise, the Sacred Obligation promise.

For that, they deserve NO allegiance.

Equality between the PENSION ACT PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARD and the LUMP SUM AWARD will be the focus of the protest on October 4th.
Mike

 

[George Wallace]

Lightguns

You were not the only one to figure it was the "usual suspect".    :facepalm:

 

[Teager]

I find it rather insulting that he wants a protest on Oct 4th the day before the information is to be released. At least let Veterans have the information first.

 

[George Wallace]

Funny, how I knew exactly who he spoke of.  Here's the other side of the story, he is calling for a Protest action on 4 October against the committee:

Here is a link to the info on this protest, for those who may be wondering what it is about:

SISIP Equality in Recognition of National Sacrifice Protest

 

[Lightguns]

Lightguns

You were not the only one to figure it was the "usual suspect".    :facepalm:

I am actually a little surprised.  After being declared persona non grata by O'Toole before the election, he campaigned like a good liberal trooper during the election.  He got his reward of a committee spot and I expected a good slurping lap dog would be his response.  I think he believes he is bigger than the government which makes him a very loose cannon.  Maybe a second banishment will result?  I will wait for the package and then see. 

 

[George Wallace]

I find it rather insulting that he wants a protest on Oct 4th the day before the information is to be released. At least let Veterans have the information first.

Makes one wonder doesn't it.  Not at all logical.  If you are going to protest, at least know what you are protesting.

 

[Lightguns]

So basically, If I am reading this right, he wants everyone who was disabled under a SISIP covered injury to have the same benefits as those disabled in an operation theatre where SISIP does not cover them.  What would be the purpose of SISIP then?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Makes one wonder doesn't it.  Not at all logical.  If you are going to protest, at least know what you are protesting.

Not if you want your version of events out before the version you don't want people to buy into #PutYourSpinOnEarly

I find it rather insulting that he wants a protest on Oct 4th the day before the information is to be released. At least let Veterans have the information first.

It could be worse - there was also some FB canvassing of opinion about protesting linked to the Invictus Games.

 

[Occam]

So basically, If I am reading this right, he wants everyone who was disabled under a SISIP covered injury to have the same benefits as those disabled in an operation theatre where SISIP does not cover them.  What would be the purpose of SISIP then?

No, the issue is that ELB is about to be bumped from 75% to 90% of pre-retirement salary.  However, for those still on SISIP, SISIP does not have the authority to increase the income loss replacement threshold to 90%, and nobody can order them to do so.  VAC doesn't even know who you are if you're on SISIP.  That's why those on SISIP should be brought over to VAC where they would be entitled to the ELB increase.

I believe the real discussion will come on Oct 5/6 when everyone can see the recommendations that have been made. The real question will be will the government adopt those recommendations?

Blais has already stated that he is the lone dissenter on the return to lifetime disability pension issue - which leads me to believe that the committee has wheeled and dealed something less.  The gov't promised an option to return to a lifetime disability pension - why are we letting them off the hook?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Blais has already stated that he is the lone dissenter on the return to lifetime disability pension issue - which leads me to believe that the committee has wheeled and dealed something less.  The gov't promised an option to return to a lifetime disability pension - why are we letting them off the hook?

I'll wait and see what the libs roll out before I decide whether we were short changed or not.

Personally, I don't like Blais. In three years he caused more dissention amongst Veterans than the RCL ever has.

YMMV.

 

[gryphonv]

No, the issue is that ELB is about to be bumped from 75% to 90% of pre-retirement salary.  However, for those still on SISIP, SISIP does not have the authority to increase the income loss replacement threshold to 90%, and nobody can order them to do so.  VAC doesn't even know who you are if you're on SISIP.  That's why those on SISIP should be brought over to VAC where they would be entitled to the ELB increase.

A recommendation from my VAC case manager with this issue is to apply for ELB from VAC even if you are on SISIP Manulife Voc Rehab. Approval should be all but guaranteed if you are accepted for Voc Rehab. Under the old rules there is overlap, so while SISIP is paying you 75%. VAC's top up to 75% is 0, so they don't pay you anything. But after the new rules kick into effect. VAC's top up will be 15%, to bring you to the stated 90%.

One issue I see from this is how does SISIP Manulife account for the cash. If they look at the 15% as extra income, you could get clawed back 50% of it, as their rules on extra income is clawed back at 50% until you reach 100% of your pre release salary and then it's clawed back at 100%.

Most likely it won't be affected by the claw back, but time will tell.

 

[Occam]

You already know more about the situation than I do.  What I know about it was explained to me, as I'm personally not in that situation so I haven't had the need to go into it in-depth.  I hope it's addressed, but it does illustrate how not all the different scenarios for veterans are being examined and consequently people are being left out in the cold with regard to policy changes.

 

[kratz]

Thank you for the discussion, and posting your comment today gryphonv.

I'm one of the rare pers receiving SISIP ELB vice VAC's version.
So I've been reading this discussion with interest.

 

[prairefire]

I am starting to have difficulty separating the actual issues from the personalities involved. Admittedly my perspective is limited. I left the CF in 1989 and I am what is best called a hybrid as I receive a 20% pension and have received a 65% award. I would prefer to have received just pension and I still feel that since I was out of the FOrces long before the NVA I should be covered only under the pension act. However that is my position and I believe strongly that I should not be under the NVA at all because many of the benefits are not available to me. Yet I also understand that lifetime pensions are not the only issue in play.

What I am having problems with is that how can I protest what I know nothing about except gossip and hearsay.....??? Many of the other benefit related issues are also worthy of consideration and that there may have to be several different approaches to resolve this.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Because that's what the government does. They force their agenda by making impossible for clients to understand where we're headed.

 

[McG]

The gov't promised an option to return to a lifetime disability pension - why are we letting them off the hook? 

Maybe, when those with a vested interest got into the details, it was found that a full return of the old pension was not worth the lump sum and other benefits that came with the NVC.  Maybe guys like Mark C found a middle ground that is better for us.

 

[brihard]

Yeah, I've been watching this for a few days now and trying without success to get a straight answer out of Mike Blais. I don't beleive for a second that Mark Campbell et al have sold other vets down the river. For those who don't know him, Mark was a PPCLI Major. He's receiving benefits under the New Veterans Charter for the loss of both legs and a testicle. He's one of the plaintiffs in the Equitas lawsuit. He knows exactly what is achievable and how it's going to be achieved. I consider the burden of proof to be on Mike Blais in this one, as he's making the extraordinary claim that he alone at that table is pushing for the right thing to happen. I suspect that it's more a matter of him insisiting on certain labels and terms being applied that the others won't go for. I suspect he's looking solely at that part of the benefit that is deemed to be for pain and suffering and saying it needs to equal the total historical payouts under the pension act, even though that was also an economic benefit.

I've asked him directly, and am still waiting for an answer. Either way we'll find out on the 5th. I'll be there.