Should we have a Royal Commission?

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by 2 Truck on Wed 10 Dec 2014, 07:12

I believe that cuts have been made on the backs of vets.
Who drew up the NVC and why was it implemented in the way in which it was? Its like dealing with an insurance company now.
Why are MPs still under the Pension Act as are the RCMP? Why were vets under the Pension Act not grandfathered in? I have 2% that is not used for anything under the PA although I have received a 2% disability claim under the NVC, with more to come. If the NVC was not a cost cutting measure on the backs of vets, I should appeal my PTSD award % and try to get grand disillusionment added or maybe I do have a mental break from reality. The MPs obviously have a psychotic break when dealing or talking about VA or the NVC. Oh, that is why they are still under the Pension Act, so they can get life long pensions after their terms.
Why do I feel like vets with the same or similar disabilities have not received the same percentages across the country or not at all? No one will know unless all medical files and claims have been examined. I don't even know if that can happen.
All I know is that the NVC should not of been created to begin with. Why would a new act be created when all that had to be done was amendments to the old act for better programs? To have better programs for the vets they said. Bullshite! To save money on the backs of the vets.
Go Equitas GO!
Maybe there should be a Royal Commission in the mean time.
Time to go back to my world of rejection letters and appeals.

2 Truck
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 23
Location : Saskatoon
Registration date : 2012-08-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Trooper on Wed 10 Dec 2014, 16:11

Right now I think what is before the courts will act somewhat of and inquiry, perhaps maybe even better, once the ball starts to roll, I am going to guess it will roll in our favor.

With respect to who drew up the NVC and why was it implemented in the way in which it was, the NVC was conceived and passed by Paul Martin's Liberals with the support of all parties. It was put into force by Harper's Conservatives as one of their first acts after forming a minority government in 2006.
As for why was it implemented, well I can only guess, either the conservatives really believed it was a positive measure, or perhaps, they did not take the time to actually read it, and understand it, or once they realized that the lump sum payments would prove to be cost savings down the road, they put it into force.
Nevertheless, once Veterans spoke out against the NVC in particular the ( LUMP SUM ) the conservatives have not taken any action to alleviate the lump sum, in fact they are fighting us in court, the lump sum is at the top of the list, in what Veterans want removed from the NVC.
Now that the heat is on, Harper continues to defend Fantino, and continues to say that they are on top of things with respect to serving Veterans.
With respect to the NVC court case, Harper is now saying It's actually a court case against the previous Liberal policy.
So yes, I would agree that both the cuts, and the lump sum, are measures meant to cut cost, on the backs of Veterans.

And you are absolutely right, all they had to do is add amendments to the old act for better programs, that would have been the best way to show Veterans that they have our very best interest at heart.
Now what you are seeing today is the conservatives defending themselves against the opposition parties at every level, one thing here is that the more they argue back and forth, the more the public becomes aware of the whole ordeal facing Veterans today.
So, the conservatives have made it clear that they won't move on the lump sum, so it may be best to forget about them, let them feel the criticism in the house, they are the ones who have to answer to it.
And let's hope that the courts sorts this mess out.
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5253
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by bigrex on Wed 10 Dec 2014, 21:30

I remember reading a briefing note, on the NVC, that was written by one of the guys who created the NVC. In it he clearly stated that the lump sum award model was to be used to mitigate the future financial liability of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. Of course that report has since been removed from the VAC website, but I distinctly remember that sentence, because it was very damaging to all the political rhetoric.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3078
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Trooper on Thu 11 Dec 2014, 18:48

Well from what I have read, it seem early on, as early as 2004 when the parties were given the NVC plan, (rumor) has it that Harper was not fully on board, but obviously ended up agreeing with it, as did all the other parties.

Today, I wonder why this government still continues to defend the lump sum part of the NVC, I am fully aware of the long term saving benefits that would result in the government saving money, lots of money, versus removing it, and going back to the old lifetime pension.

However, with all the criticism, and all of the backlash, and there is a lot of it against the Harper government, I am beginning to think that perhaps there maybe something beyond the cost savings aspect of it.
The thought of having to deal with the individual Veterans who have already received the lump sum thus far, if they were to completely remove the lump sum, and go back to the old pension plan, this I think could become a nightmare for the government, the only thing I could think of is each Veteran who received the lump sum would have to be re evaluated for each condition, and or conditions, and going forward would have to deduct so much from their Monthly pension until the lump sum paid to them, is paid back.
Maybe what I have said does not make a whole lot of sense, I am just trying make some sense of it all, by going beyond the cost saving theory, this theory just might be another possibility as to why this government will not move on the lump sum issue.
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5253
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by teentitan on Thu 11 Dec 2014, 19:45

The biggest problem with anything VAC does is dealing with the bureaucrats! Politicians are the puppets and the bureaucrats are the masters that pull the strings. Proof? NVC. Created by bureaucrats and rammed down the throats of politicians WITHOUT consulting veteran organizations for input.
avatar
teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3243
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Trooper on Fri 12 Dec 2014, 12:56

Teen,

Yes the NVC was created by bureaucrats within DVA, and they did not consult anyone outside of their department for input.
They sold it to the politicians without any one party opposing it.

We now know why Veterans were not consulted on the NVC, it has become clear as mud today that the lump sum part of the NVC is not welcomed by most Veterans today.

So yes the bureaucrats created it, but I am almost certain that's not where it ends, it may have very well started there, but it ends with the politicians who all supported it, implemented it, and now chooses not to address the ( LUMP SUM ) in removing it to support Veterans who want it removed.

Removing the ( LUMP SUM ) part of the NVC  can only be done by either the politicians of the current majority government, or by the courts of Canada where it
unfortunately sits today.

Who is responsible today for this ongoing cluster, to me it sits with the current government who insist on keeping the lump sum as it stands.
They, and they alone are fully responsible today, for the ordeal in which we find ourselves into today, with respect to the lump sum.

All or most of this could have been avoided to a degree, if only the government would have listen to what Veterans were saying about the lump sum part of the NVC.

So to me the way I see it today is yes the NVC was created by the bureaucrats, Implemented by the politicians, who are now fully responsible for it.
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5253
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by teentitan on Fri 12 Dec 2014, 13:49

There's no denying what you stated trooper. Why the Cons want to carry on with this is absolutely mind boggling.

Hey admitting the NVC is a royal cluster will make ANY party look like they do care. So like you said whoever is pulling the strings in the background is a mystery.
avatar
teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3243
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Guest on Fri 12 Dec 2014, 16:07

only one guy pulling the strings for the con,s and he runs a tight ship alcohol or not . if he didn't want it it would already be gone.

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Guest on Sat 13 Dec 2014, 09:13

Harper is in control, he's the Dear Leader, look at some of his old days in opposition, everything he said was a lie, even real conservatives are having a problem with his control freak ways!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Trooper on Sat 13 Dec 2014, 13:44

Yes he is in control, he is known to keep a short leash on his MP's, and nothing of any significance passes before going through him.
The thing that must be asked here is this being in control or being a control freak by any PM, would or could this be a good thing, or a bad thing when it comes to the well being of the Country as a whole.
The way I see it is that I would rather have and PM who is in full control of his MP's at all times, even if this means calling him a control freak.
I think, and that's just me, one who has no or very little control could very well end up being a recipe for disaster, and the Country as a whole could suffer from it.
Now don't shoot the writer but I think Harper has done some great things for this Country as a (WHOLE), so much so, that I would be hesitant to suggest that the Liberals, or the NDP, could do any better for the Country as a (WHOLE).

However, when it comes to Veterans, Harper has completely missed the boat on this file.
In short, I would say that Harper is good for the Country as a (WHOLE), bad for Veterans.
Do I think that changing governments would prove to better Veterans in this Country, no, I do not, and I don't simply because politicians are politicians, and they have proven in the past to make promises they can't keep, this is also true when it comes to handling the Veterans file.
That said, in dealing with the Veterans file in today's world regardless who holds the position of the minister, the responsibility of our file lies at the top, the PM.
He is the only one who can delegate to take action on our file to the minister in charge of our file, and unless the minister through the PM starts listening to what Veterans are saying and asking for, no real progress will ever take place on our file.
I also think that the minister has a duty and obligation to fully inform the PM as to exactly what lies at the very top of the list of what Veterans are asking for, if this is not done again no real progress will take place.

So for me this is where I think we stand today, it's only and opinion, not by any means concrete just one persons point of view.

Going forward one can only speculate as to what will take place with respect to the Veterans file.
Again, just my opinion as to what I think will take place in the new year.
I am almost certain Harper is feeling public pressure on the Veterans file, now that the house is on Christmas break and won't resume until the end of January 2015, I am going to guess that he will move or replace Fantino.
Look for this early in the new year, very early in the new year.
I think he knows that although the senate scandal may have went away he knows that the Veterans file will not, given that it will be and election year I think he will attempt to address issues to a greater extent, I think he also realizes that by removing Fantino from the picture, that in itself, would not fix the problems other positive measures would need to follow suit.

Again, just my opinions and thoughts just trying to add some wishful thoughts to what seems to be and ongoing battle we face today.
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5253
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by teentitan on Sat 13 Dec 2014, 15:41

Well Fantino/Harper have to table a response to the Standing Committee Report by January 30, 2015.

So seeing it'a an election year and with all the pressure from veterans and the media he needs to drop something huge.

Huge enough to have the Equitas lawsuit dropped? Maybe...just maybe.

Let's put it this way there is no more wiggle room. My opinion is if Fantino is still the minister after Christmas vacation then it is going to be something big enough to be a significant push back on the opposing parties.
avatar
teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3243
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Guest on Sat 13 Dec 2014, 16:12

well he will need fantino till the election so I don't really see him loosing a cabinet position nor can I see him moving to another right now but that may be possible I just don't see another position out there right now.

sure with an election coming they will announce something of course it will not be much but they will make it look like a lot so when it comes out don't over react wait for the details and you will see what I mean. whatever it is ( im guessing an significant increase in the buyout amount retro to 06 probably not announced till close to election time) . may be a couple of other smaller things , it will still not be enough to stop the lawsuit .

this government has not been very good for this country sure they did a few good things but I think the other parties could have done better and would in the future . and when it comes to vets issues im sure the other parties would do no worse and probably do better.

propat


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by teentitan on Sat 13 Dec 2014, 16:18

Fantino would not be the first member of cabinet to fall on the sword by making an announcement during the Christmas break that he has informed the PM he will not be seeking re-election.

This would be when he's replaced, probably with Erin O'Toole (ret'd CF) and the Cons move forward.
avatar
teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3243
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Guest on Sat 13 Dec 2014, 17:19

thing is teen its looking like a very close election with every vote and seat will matter . fantino with a cabinet post will jn all likelihood win hi riding . even without a post he is still there best shot . without him im pretty sure that riding would be lost to them . so for these reasons the cons would really want to keep him and preferably with a post.

sure I do believe he was looking at other political aspirations but given the heat he has been under im thinking that they are no longer possible for him to peruse at this time .

yup he could leave for the private sector but that would be against harpers pleas for him to stay.

so im thinking he will stay with a cabinet post and looking at the totem board it will be the same post he has unless someone elce steps on their own thing or pees in harpers cornflakes .

after the election IF the cons win he WILL move faster than poop thru a goose.

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Should we have a Royal Commission?

Post by Trooper on Sat 13 Dec 2014, 18:38

propat,

You make some good points and of course nothing can be taken off the table with respect to Fantino.
However, looking at it from a past history performance of Fantino, and the conservatives moving forward into an election, Harper will do what's best for the Conservatives, even if that means moving Fantino out of the Veterans portfolio.

With the aftermath of the AG's report, which gave the opposition parties a field day against Fantino, which landed on the laps of the Conservatives in general.
This among other things has given reasons for Harper to be concerned.
Fantino being in Italy when the AG's report came out did not help matters either.
Right now Harper knows full well that he has to act on this, and act quickly.
Harper will without any doubt move him if it suits him, no riding or seat will get in Harper's way in him doing what he sees fit for his party.

One other point I would like to bring up, and it has to do with the election itself.
The Federal election is scheduled for Oct, 19, 2015.
This is the fixed date of the election, however, we cannot discount the fact that the Conservatives could call an election before this fixed date.
This early election possibility is a card that can be played if for whatever reason they see fit to give them the upper hand, and some have already pointed to this as a real possibility.
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5253
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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