Canadian Soldiers Assistance Team (CSAT) Forum

THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Jeffery M on Tue 30 Jul 2013, 14:42

At least one veterans group promises to campaign against the Harper Conservatives because of a stand taken by federal lawyers, who argue the country holds no extraordinary social obligation to ex-soldiers.

The lawyers, fighting a class-action lawsuit in British Columbia, asked a judge to dismiss the court action filed by injured Afghan veterans, saying Ottawa owes them nothing more than what they have already received under its controversial New Veterans Charter.

The stand drew an incendiary reaction from veterans advocates, who warned they are losing patience with the Harper government, which has made supporting troops one of its political battle cries.

Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, told a Parliament Hill news conference that since the First World War, the federal government has recognized it has a "sacred obligation" to veterans and that notion was abandoned with the adoption of the veterans charter by the Conservatives.

"We are asking the government to stand down on this ridiculous position (and) to accept the obligation that successive generations of Parliament have wilfully embraced," Blais said, who pointed out veterans of Afghanistan deserve the same level of commitment those who fought in the world wars.

"We're damned determined to ensure (the same) standard of care is provided by this government or we shall work to provide and elect another government that will fulfil its sacred obligation."

The lawsuit filed last fall by six veterans claims that the new charter, which replaces life-time pensions with workers compensation-style lump sum awards for wounds, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In all cases, the awards are substantially less than what service member would have received under the old Pension Act system, which was initially set up following the First World War.

Veterans advocates, including Blais, see the new veterans charter a bottom-line exercise.

"We went to war, signed up to serve this nation, nobody told us we would be abandoned," he said.

"Nobody told us they were going to change the game in mid-flights and that our government would turn its back on us, and put the budget ahead of their sacred obligation."

Federal lawyers argued that the veterans lawsuit is "abuse of process" that should be thrown out.

"In support of their claim, the representative plaintiffs assert the existence of a 'social covenant,' a public law duty, and a fiduciary duty on the part of the federal government," Jasvinder S. Basran, the regional director general for the federal Justice Department, said in an application filed with the court.

The lawsuit invokes the "honour of the Crown," a concept that has been argued in aboriginal rights claims.

"The defendant submits that none of the claims asserted by the representative plaintiffs constitutes a reasonable claim, that the claims are frivolous or vexatious, and accordingly that they should be struck out in their entirety."

New Democrat veterans critic Peter Stoffer says the legal implication of claiming the government has no special obligation to veterans is extremely far-reaching and he demanded the Conservatives clarify what it means.

He noted that unlike the previous legislation, the new veterans charter — passed unanimously by all parties in 2005 and enacted by the Conservatives in 2006 — contained no reference to social obligation.

Both Stoffer and Blais do not advocate for a complete return to the old pension system, but rather that veterans be given a choice of how the benefit is paid.

Among the soldiers named in the suit is Maj. Mark Douglas Campbell, a 32-year veteran of the Canadian Forces who served in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

In June 2008, Campbell, of the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was struck by an improved explosive device and Taliban ambush.

He lost both legs above the knee, one testicle, suffered numerous lacerations and a ruptured eardrum. He has since been diagnosed with depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Campbell received a lump-sum payment for pain and suffering of $260,000. He will receive his military pension, with an earnings loss benefit and a permanent impairment allowance but he is entirely unable to work and will suffer a net earnings loss due to his injuries, the lawsuit claims.

Another plaintiff soldier suffered severe injuries to his leg and foot in the blast that killed Canadian journalist Michelle Lang and four soldiers. He was awarded $200,000 in total payments for pain and suffering and post-traumatic stress.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.

The federal government application says policy decisions of the government and legislation passed by Parliament are not subject to review by the courts.

"The basic argument that they're making is that Parliament can do what it wants," said Don Sorochan, the soldiers' lawyer.

He said he receives calls almost daily from soldiers affected by the changes, and thousands ultimately could be involved.

Sorochan, who is handling the case for free, said he doesn't believe the objective of the legislation was to save money at the expense of injured soldiers, but that's what has happened.

"When the legislation was brought in it was believed by the politicians involved — and I've talked to several of them, in all parties — that they were doing a good thing," Sorochan said.

"But anybody that can objectively look at what is happening to these men and women who have served us, can't keep believing that."

Jeffery M
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 151
Location : Winnipeg
Registration date : 2012-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Jeffery M on Tue 30 Jul 2013, 14:24

Our government has taken their foot, placed it into their mouth..and the driven it down their throat!

Jeffery M
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 151
Location : Winnipeg
Registration date : 2012-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by bigrex on Tue 30 Jul 2013, 10:28

Jeffery, I understand the exact language isn't used in the NVC, but I think the work around, is that there are veterans who fall under both legislation, and it cannot be argued that the countries sacred duty to those Veterans ended in Apr 2006. That being said, it would be hard for the lawyers, to argue that the country only has a continued moral and legal obligation to certain members of the class. And it would be even harder for the politicians to publicly support such a stance, to the Canadian people, especially after their image as the pro military has been so widely criticized already over the last few years.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3115
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by F foundry on Tue 30 Jul 2013, 09:02

Jeffery M
I was going to ask about that I looked and could not find much in the way of commitment on the goverments side in reference to The NVC.

any info would be nice to see if any one has any or knows were to look?
avatar
F foundry
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 392
Age : 55
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2012-07-18

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Jeffery M on Mon 29 Jul 2013, 23:48

THE RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION THAT PROTECTS VETERANS UNDER THE PENSION ACT, IS NOT PART OF THE NVC!!!!!!!!

Jeffery M
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 151
Location : Winnipeg
Registration date : 2012-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Jeffery M on Mon 29 Jul 2013, 22:57

Will do Teen!

Jeffery M
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 151
Location : Winnipeg
Registration date : 2012-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Teentitan on Mon 29 Jul 2013, 20:49

I believe our Ombudsman feels the same way. Go to the Ombudsman thread and read his latest blog...he's not happy with last weeks court dates.
avatar
Teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3293
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Jeffery M on Mon 29 Jul 2013, 20:18

Unbelievable. No recognized obligation to veterans, my ASS!
Fantastic find F foundry

Jeffery M
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 151
Location : Winnipeg
Registration date : 2012-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Guest on Mon 29 Jul 2013, 19:28

not dry at all buds great stuff thanks a lot.

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by F foundry on Mon 29 Jul 2013, 15:08

Just a bit of info that I am sure most already know, I have been very upset since first reading about this issue and can't believe for the life of me that some one thought this was right in reguards to, we the crown have no obligation to Veterans, How about we the people of canada have no obligation to pay taxes!!!

Any ways here is some information:

Pension Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. P-6
An Act to provide pensions and other benefits to or in respect of members of the Canadian naval, army and air forces and of the Canadian Forces
SHORT TITLE
Marginal note:Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Pension Act.
R.S., c. P-7, s. 1.
CONSTRUCTION
Marginal note:Construction
2. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.
R.S., c. 22 (2nd Supp.), s. 1.

Department of Veterans Affairs Act
R.S.C., 1985, c. V-1
An Act respecting the Department of Veterans Affairs
SHORT TITLE
Marginal note:Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Department of Veterans Affairs Act.
R.S., 1985, c. V-1, s. 1;
2000, c. 34, s. 95(F).
INTERPRETATION
Definition of “dependant”
1.1 For the purposes of this Act, “dependant” means the spouse or common-law partner or child of any person referred to in subparagraph 4(a)(i), or any other person who provided or received care or support, financial or otherwise, to or from that person.
2011, c. 24, s. 179.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT
Marginal note:Department established
2. (1) There is hereby established a department of the Government of Canada called the Department of Veterans Affairs over which the Minister of Veterans Affairs appointed by commission under the Great Seal shall preside.
Marginal note:Minister
(2) The Minister holds office during pleasure and has the management and direction of the Department.
R.S., 1985, c. V-1, s. 2;
2000, c. 34, s. 94(F).
Marginal note:Deputy head
3. The Governor in Council may appoint an officer called the Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs to hold office during pleasure and to be the deputy head of the Department.
R.S., 1985, c. V-1, s. 3;
2000, c. 34, s. 94(F).
POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE MINISTER


Marginal note:Powers, duties and functions of Minister
4. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend and apply to
(a) the administration of such Acts of Parliament, and of such orders of the Governor in Council, as are not by law assigned to any other department of the Government of Canada or any Minister thereof, relating to
(i) the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces or merchant navy or in the naval, army or air forces or merchant navies of Her Majesty, of any person who has otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to war, and of any other person designated by the Governor in Council, and
(ii) the care of the dependants or survivors of any person referred to in subparagraph (i); and
(b) all such other matters and such boards and other bodies, subjects, services and properties of the Crown as may be designated, or assigned to the Minister, by the Governor in Council.
R.S., 1985, c. V-1, s. 4;
2000, c. 34, s. 11.
Marginal note:Gifts and bequests
4.1 The Minister may accept and administer any property and moneys that are conveyed to the Minister for the benefit of a class or subclass of persons referred to in subparagraph 4(a)(i) or (ii), on such terms and conditions as are set out in the conveyance or, if none are set out, on such terms and conditions as the Minister deems reasonable.
2000, c. 34, s. 12.


Hope it was not to dry LOL
avatar
F foundry
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 392
Age : 55
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2012-07-18

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Jeffery M on Sun 28 Jul 2013, 00:39

A part of my soul was raped repeatedly, again and again in the Panjwaii Valley of Kandahar.
I died over there. I have been begging God to give me another chance to have a sacred place in his Kingdom when I pass.
PTSD is not a disorder, but rather a disease. It festers..

Compensations is not a solution, but rather a distraction. But it also is an opportunity. An opportunity to fester the thought, that we that remain, can spread a small token of our recognition, to commit greats deeds. To enhance the human spirit.

One veteran, One standard.

Jeffery M
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 151
Location : Winnipeg
Registration date : 2012-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Jeffery M on Sun 28 Jul 2013, 00:25


Sylvain Chartrand CD ResF
Administrator
Sr. Member

Posts: 446
Activity:
0.26%


Sit Rep Press Conference 0930, July 30th Parliament Hill - Equitas
« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2013, 07:47:19 PM »
Sit Rep Press Conference 0930, Parliament Hill - Equitas

Be advised that Peter Stoffer, NDP Veterans Affairs critic, will be holding a press conference on Parliament Hill, Tuesday, July 30th at 0930. I have been invited to speak to the Sacred Obligation the Government is claiming does not exists and I will be traveling to Ottawa Sunday for meetings Monday and the PC Tuesday morning. It is important that we present a unified front, that veterans of all ages and eras are seen demonstrating support for the Afghanistan wounded by standing in a row behind the principle speakers.

The Canadian Veterans Advocacy has been steadfast and resolute in support of Jim Scott and the Equitas team, indeed, our position has been somewhat justified by the government lawyers claims that veterans should approach our MP's for legislated change... No kidding. Did we not do just this in 2010 when we protested in front of MP's offices nation wide? Was not the CVA was created to continue this fight on the political level?

Yes indeedy.

The mission has yet to conclude, soon, we will once again march on parliament, we will once again encourage our government's MPs to embrace, not ignore, the obligation they have to those they send to war. We need you to stand for Equitas with us next Tuesday, if you are in the Ottawa area and wish to participate, meet us in front of the Peace Tower at 0900 hrs, if not, support our mission as we enter patrolling season next fall when parliament sits. It is our intention to engage on the national level through Remembrance Week, the focus will be the Sacred Obligation and the treatment of those who sacrificed so greatly prior to 2006 will be compared to the standards Equitas is fighting to resolve.

Are you willing to stand for your brothers and sisters? Are you willing to rally in front of your MPs office, to stand on guard for those who stand on guard for thee, to do exactly what the government's lawyers would tell us to do??????

The time has come to start getting organized in your community for a Rally in front of your MPs office, to stand for Kevin Berry, Mark Campbell, Aaron Bedard and all veterans who are subject to this grotesque policy.

We will fight, we you?

Mike, Prez, CVA

Jeffery M
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 151
Location : Winnipeg
Registration date : 2012-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Rifleman on Sat 27 Jul 2013, 15:47

Thanks for all the info Jeffery

Rifleman
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 613
Location : facebook
Registration date : 2013-05-15

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Guest on Thu 25 Jul 2013, 22:20

thank you for that Jeffery keep us informed as best you can buds.

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Jeffery M on Thu 25 Jul 2013, 20:19

Equitas Society
Well After 3 days in court observing the federal governments lawyers move to strike down our case, we plaintiffs who were able to attend are quite burnt out. I compared trying to follow some of the lawyers statements was like interpreting a foreign film without subtitles. The proceedings ended yesterday July 24th and we await the judges ruling. Days or weeks we will wait now. Thank god we had someone among us who could take notes and understand and simplify what we heard. Ladies and gentlemen Harold Leduc.



"I've listened to the arguments presented by both sides in the current Court proceedings to determine if the Miller Thompson/ Equitas law suit can proceed.

Regardless of the outcome, Government lawyers taught us a very important lesson this week about how the Government views Veterans. They based their argument and it's now a matter of public record in a court of law that the Government feels:
1. veterans are essentially no different than any other citizen collecting other social benefits (welfare, unemployment, etc) and we are owed nothing more.
2. there is no 'Social Contract' between veterans, the Government and the People of Canada despite it being written through out legislation and in CF publications.
3. that if citizens (Veterans in the case of the NVC) don't like the Government's laws, we are free to replace the Government through an election.

Shocking statements showing Government's arrogant, disrespectful and aggressive adversarial position against us. You may recall that as an election promise, the Conservative party committed to improving veterans benefits. Instead of changing the offending parts of the NVC that they opposed in opposition, they adopted the Liberal Government's NVC as if was their own. Now they are wasting what can amount to millions of taxpayers dollars to defend it in the courts, in a breach of our 'Social Contract' and potential breach of Constitutional law, just like they did in their losing battle against Dennis Manuge in the SISIP court case.

When the Liberal Government was rushing the NVC though Parliament before they were defeated in 2006, Minster of Veterans Affairs Albina Gueriani, with the heads of Veterans organizations present, told Members of Parliament, with the heads of Veterans organizations present, that if MP's voted against the NVC, they were voting against Veterans.

Could the same be said about Veterans organizations and individuals who continue to work 'with' the Government, including the Ombudsman, under the current circumstances of a Government who's hidden agenda treats us like a burden on society disrespecting a long established 'social contract' that once was the envy of the Allied world?

What should we make of the organizations who appear to be ignoring supported allegations and calls for explanations of how their policies and actions play a significant role in denying Veterans and their families essential benefits disrespecting the established concept of 'One Veteran'? Aren't they part of our community? Don't they owe us an explanation when asked? Is there anything we can do as a community to address this behaviour? Is the behaviour important enough to address?

On our behalf, Miller Thompson / Equitas argued to the Court that the 'Social Contract' between veterans, the Government and the people of Canada is historically owned by the people of Canada and it's not open for any governing party to manipulate it as if it were their own policy as is the current case. Should we adopt the same position? What can we do about the Government's behaviour?

In summary, the lawyers, on behalf of the Government told us that there is no 'Social Contract', we are no better than welfare recipients and we should vote the current Party out of office. In addition, the Veterans organizations seem to be working 'with' the Government and not with our community.

We know where we stand, what are we prepared to do about it as a community?

All comments including those of the organizations are encouraged to provide a balanced point of view to help us work together to find a way to move beyond the current discourse.

Sincerely

Harold"
Timeline Photos · 7 hours ago ·
View Full Size

Jeffery M
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 151
Location : Winnipeg
Registration date : 2012-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: THE CROWN ARGUED THAT CANADA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VETERANS

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum