Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP

Post by ArtyRMS on Sun 28 Dec 2014, 02:37


Veterans story being misrepresented


While I have been the first to admit that more needs to be done for veterans and that there are legitimate issues, Cheryl Meheden and Mark Sandilands (Dec. 16 letter to the editor) should do some independent fact-checking before they sound off.
The veterans story is a good one, but certainly not a perfect one, and it will always be a work in progress. Every issue the Auditor General raised was already being addressed and he also cited examples of things going right. The Liberals lapsed almost $112 million in their last year for the same reasons; where is the outrage over that? The 14 substantive recommendations of the Veterans Affairs Committee are all being addressed, but it doesn’t happen overnight.
Major Mark Campbell is receiving his full CAF pension plus substantial monthly financial and support benefits under the New Veterans Charter plus substantial lump sum amounts. They should ask him how much he is receiving. What he is not receiving, in addition to all that, is a pension under the old Pension Act that is no longer in effect, having been replaced under legislation passed by the Liberal government and implemented by the Conservative government. This story truly is being misrepresented.
In response to Richard Gaff (Dec. 23 letter to the editor), please read what I actually say. I have always acknowledged legitimate issues in service to veterans. Injured do have access to lifetime financial benefits in form of Permanent Impairment Allowance (PIAS) and PIAS Supplement. See recommendations of the Committee report – also working on making Earnings Loss Benefit for life; we just don’t use the word “pension.”
I and others are working hard in public and behind the scenes to make progress; and we are, always with more to do. Any government has to deal with reality and competing legitimate demands. Mr. Gaff is right, I was only a “cold warrior” and while not in combat, I did lose over three dozen friends. I do understand loss. And, yes, I would fly the F-35 anywhere.
Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP
Lieutenant-Colonel (retired)

CSAT Member

Number of posts : 7
Location : Chilliwack, BC
Registration date : 2014-11-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP

Post by Teentitan on Sun 28 Dec 2014, 12:54

Yep crystal clear recommendations Mr. Hawn...crystal clear!

How's about you explain this one from the report you helped write?

That the earnings loss benefit be non-taxable and set at 85% of net income, up to a net income threshold of $70,000, that it be adjusted annually to the consumer price index, and that for veterans who participate in a rehabilitation program, the disability award be paid once the program is completed..

CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3271
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP

Post by Guest on Sun 28 Dec 2014, 18:12

And Mr. Hawn while your at it - put the pedal to the medal on those 14 recommendations - I understand these things don't happen overnight but I think your government departments have had plenty of time to action this.
Best of luck to you and your conservative government in your fight to keep the NVC law suit from going forward - is this what you mean when you say that you and others are working hard in public and behind the scenes to make progress ?

Last edited by trooper on Mon 29 Dec 2014, 18:57; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Added a sentence)


Back to top Go down

Re: Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP

Post by 2 Truck on Mon 29 Dec 2014, 04:32

Mr. Hawn

There you go again, trying to put a spin on it for your government.
I believe that Major Mark Campbell has stated publicly is that under the NVC if you compare two soldiers who have lost their legs in service, one being a Major and one being a Corporal there is a substantial difference in the amount of compensation they would receive. Yet if their injuries are the same you would expect them to receive the same.
Under the old Pension Act they would receive the same.
The CAF pension is an amount earned by time in the service and rank achieved. It does not or should not have a bearing on disabilities obtained during that service.
The Earning Lost Benefit (ELB) is a major flaw in the NVC. Again it was designed to save money on the backs of injured veterans. This is simple to explain and I believe it was designed so that no injured high ranking officers would speak out publicly. For example purposes, a Major and a Corporal are totally disabled. They will each get 75% of their wage under the ELB. Say the major will get 75% of $120,000/ year and the corporal will get 75% of $60,000. So the major gets $90,000 and the corporal gets $45,000. Under the NVC it saves the government money because of the ratio of the number of Majors to Corporals. Say 1:100. Now figure out the rate of injured majors to corporals. Follow the math. So instead of giving the same monthly disability pension as under the Pension Act, they save money on the higher percentage of corporals who will be injured during their service compared to the number of majors being injured.
They only receive the same when it pertains to the disability award. Yet who gets more for the same injury over a life time?
Lets not ask Major Campbell what he is receiving due to his time served, let us ask the government to explain why the Corporal is not receiving the same benefits for the same injury as the major.
Mr. Hawn, remember the old adage" Respect is earned, not given" and your government hasn't earned my respect thus far!


2 Truck
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 27
Location : Saskatoon
Registration date : 2012-08-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP

Post by Guest on Mon 29 Dec 2014, 12:16

I agree of what you have stated 2 Truck - Well said.

Further to what you have said - Mr. Hawn is a conservative, and he will follow the conservative views on the Veteran file as it stands today be it right or wrong.

Right from the beginning when the conservatives implemented the NVC - This is when the conservatives could have, and should have further looked into the NVC, and fixed it right then and there - but no it passed through the house quickly without any questions from any party.
That right there does not cut it, as time passed it became clear that this new program was putting ongoing disable Veterans at a disadvantage over disable Veterans who were on the old system.
At this point the conservative government took the approach of coming forward publicly defending there actions by stating that they are looking after Veterans and the Veterans of today are better off than those on the old plan, the NVC was the answer for the well being of Veterans going forward.
They claimed and continue today to say that they are looking after Veterans, and are listening to what Veterans have to say.

They themselves are responsible for this whole mess - They continue to stand firm on how they are handling the Veterans file - They continue to Ignore what Veterans are saying - or asking for.
They use tactics like stating publicly that the majority of Veterans are happy in the way they are being treated by the government - they continue to say and think that it is only a minority of Veterans who are challenging the government.
They make and announcement that they have fixed and issue - but the fixed issue is not a major issue that was asked to be fixed - then they come out publicly in saying look what we have done for Veterans here.

This is and old tactic used by many different governments in the pass, it is a tactic designed to make it look good, it is meant to fool others in believing they are being looked after.
The problem for this government here is that this tactic is being challenged by Veterans who are not fooled into this type of hype.

So for me I say to those that go against what the Veterans are saying - or asking for - keep defending yourselves, we no longer need you onboard - we are in good hands now - we are in the hands of the courts of this fine Country - a Country that Veterans protected - just remember one thing, you are dealing with individuals who are use to fighting, and if you continue to try and fool us, we will continue to fight you in court.


Back to top Go down

Re: Hon. Laurie Hawn, PC, CD, MP

Post by czerv on Mon 29 Dec 2014, 15:47

Dearest MP,
I did not thing anyone could get any lower than this: trying to shift the attention and blame to the victim. No, I will not ask Maj Campbell how much is he getting in a monthly payment (from the moneys that he paid to through the insurance/pension contributions, etc., etc. )
I would though like to ask you how much are you getting from your military pension: after, I guess 35 years of service and retiring with 70% of your best five years. Then at least $70.000 a year? Please correct me if I am wrong. What is your MP’s salary? Another $60.000? and , have your worked already long enough to get your MP’s pension of $...... ? Shameful.
Correction to your train of thought. 1. There is no such a thing as ‘full military pension’ for Maj Campbell nor any other retired mil member. You should know that military pension is based on the number of years that one served in the military.
Please, enlighten me as to what have you accomplished while working ‘behind the scenes to make progress’ when it comes to the NVC issues? Your crew has been in power for a long time now and nothing has improved. We are still waiting for 10/20/30 weeks to get a ‘denied’ letters from VAC!
You write that you lost ‘over three dozen friends’ ? Sorry to hear that and also very puzzling.
I have never heard of any Lieutenant-Colonel having so many Pts/Cpls/WO, etc. , as friends.
Times are surely changing.
Blessings to you and good luck with your next election campaign.

CSAT Member

Number of posts : 185
Location : Ontario
Registration date : 2013-05-15

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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