MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Page 10 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Tue 22 Mar 2016, 14:57

I'm with you Propat! The captains there for celebration but also there to ease the pain, either way it's going to help, lol

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Tue 22 Mar 2016, 17:19

Garbage for vets

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by jack22 on Tue 22 Mar 2016, 17:28

shame on you MVA You just prouve to us that the concept of RESPECT is something that you defenetely not understand.

i am very desapointed with append today.

cant not wait to see wath ombudsman had to say to the press

jack22
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 32
Location : Québec city
Registration date : 2012-08-11

Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Nemo on Tue 22 Mar 2016, 18:06

And to think Canadian veterans campaiged against the Conservatives and they only got a bigger rat instead of someone that actually cared. I don't know what the Libs are doing for veterans but clearly they are doing nothing but harm to our military.
avatar
Nemo
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 305
Location : canada
Registration date : 2010-08-13

Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Tue 22 Mar 2016, 23:00

God, that ID card sounds really good now!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Mar 2016, 06:18


Budget 2016: Military purchases postponed but veterans get billions

OTTAWA -- The promised re-equipping of the Canadian military has essentially been postponed until after the next election in a maiden federal Liberal budget that shifts billions of dollars in capital spending to 2020 -- or later.
The Trudeau government's new fiscal plan shoves $3.7 billion in planned defence purchases -- ships, planes and vehicles -- off into the future, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau insists the move does not represent a cut to military funding.
Morneau said the Liberals need a year to figure out Canada's defence priorities.

"In order to make sure we have the funds available at the time when they need those funds, we've reprofiled some in the fiscal framework," he told a news conference prior to tabling the budget in the House of Commons.
"So, when we need the money, the money will be in the fiscal framework. So, we believe that is the appropriate action to take to ensure our military has the appropriate equipment, the planes and the ships they need."
Instead, it was the veterans community that emerged Tuesday as one of the biggest winners in the Liberal spending spree.
Canada's ex-soldiers will see enriched disability awards, expanded access to permanent impairment allowances and a more generous income replacement program for the wounded -- measures totalling $5.6 billion over six years, starting this year.
Veterans ombudsman Guy Parent said he was generally pleased with the budget, but will have to run the data to see if the new measures, combined with previous changes by the Conservatives, address the needs of the most vulnerable ex-soldiers -- namely, the wounded from the Afghan war.
What the Liberals didn't include in the budget was a campaign promise to return to a lifetime pension for the wounded, as opposed to the current -- and controversial -- $360,000 disability award.
That omission upset a number of advocates, notably Mike Blais of Canadian Veterans Advovacy.

The budget also retreads a previous commitment to reopen nine regional Veterans Affairs offices shuttered by the previous Conservative government, but does not say precisely when that will happen.
The Liberals promised both measures during the fall election campaign.
What was unexpected in Tuesday's budget blueprint was the decision to defer big-ticket procurement spending -- a serious issue for a military facing serious rust-out issues.
The Conservatives did the same thing in two previous budgets. The cumulative total of postponed defence purchases has now reached $10.4 billion, said defence analyst Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
For the previous government, the postponement had a lot to do with the balancing the budget, said Perry. To be fair to the Liberals, they need to figure out their defence priorities and fix the broken procurement system, he noted.
"This is reflecting in budgetary terms that they can't buy things," Perry said. "I don't know if this government really had much of a choice. They walked in and these projects were not going to move."
The political significance, Perry said, is that National Defence will be expecting its money at time when the Liberals will likely have to get serious about cutting the deficit, which is projected this year at $29.4 billion, falling to $14.4 billion by 2020-21.
"They're literally going to have an issue five years from now because that's when the bill arrives," said Perry, who noted that the military is at the point where it needs concrete guarantees that the money will be spent.
"I think if I was National Defence, I would hope you'd already have the money in the bank, instead of having to rely on a promise of some year, some time in the future they'll be able to acquire this stuff."

Although not mentioned in the budget, finance officials say the previous Liberal commitment to maintain annual increases of three per cent to the defence operating budget to offset inflation will stand.
Federal budget documents released ahead of Tuesday's fiscal plan suggest that baseline defence funding overall will drop by as much as $400 million when compared with the current budget year. Finance officials say the allocation is routinely topped up throughout the year in supplementary requests.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-2016-military-purchases-postponed-but-veterans-get-billions-1.2828114

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Mar 2016, 06:23

Budget promises more compensation for most-injured veterans

The most seriously injured members of the Canadian Forces will receive increased compensation under measures announced in the new federal budget, as the Liberals seek better relations with a group whose anger created headaches for the previous Conservative government.

“They are going after some of the important items that they can address really quickly,” said Scott Maxwell, the executive director of Wounded Warriors Canada. “It looks as if they are going after the most-injured population in terms of the people who are incapable of making a successful skills transition” to civilian life, he said.

The section of the budget devoted to veterans is primarily aimed at improving the New Veterans Charter, which came into effect in 2006 and replaced a system in which disabled vets received lifetime pensions with one that relies largely on lump-sum payments. Newer veterans, including many of those who served in Afghanistan, say the new system provides them with less than was offered to their predecessors.

The government says the new measures will cost an additional $3.7-billion over the lifetime of veterans who are currently in the system. Over the next five years, those payments will add up to about $1.6-billion.

The government is increasing three types of awards available to disabled former soldiers.

The maximum amount of the disability award, which is paid to all veterans who have suffered a serious illness or injury related to their service, will rise to $360,000 from $310,000, starting in 2017, and will be indexed to inflation. Any veteran who has received the disability award since 2006 will get a retroactive top-up.
More veterans will become eligible for higher payments under the Permanent Impairment Allowance, which compensates those whose careers have been limited by an illness or injury, according to the severity of their disability. The Veterans Ombudsman has complained that numerous veterans who have been assessed as totally and permanently incapacitated are not receiving the the full allowance.
The Earnings Loss Benefit, which replaces the income of injured veterans while they are participating in a vocational or rehabilitation program run by Veterans Affairs Canada, will be increased to 90 per cent from 75 per cent of their prerelease salary. That benefit will also be indexed to inflation.

The Liberal government did not meet a campaign commitment to offer lifetime pensions as an option to injured veterans. But veterans groups say they did not expect that to be included in this year’s budget.

“There was not enough time,” Michael Blais of Canadian Veterans Advocacy said. “We don’t want them to rush into a program that is bereft because they were trying to rush it into this budget.”

In addition to the help for disabled vets, nine Veterans Affairs offices across Canada that were closed by the former Conservative government – prompting an outcry from veterans groups and civil service unions – will be reopened, and a 10th office will be created in Surrey, B.C. There will also be more case managers hired to reduce wait times for service.

And more lower-income military families will qualify for payments under the Last Post Fund, which covers the cost of burials and funerals for deceased veterans.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget-promises-more-compensation-for-most-injured-veterans/article29353129/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Mar 2016, 06:32

Hehr’s mandate: Restore lifelong pensions for veterans, reopen offices

Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr has a lot of work to do in fixing Ottawa’s relationship with Canada’s veterans, according to his official mandate letter from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, starting with the restoration of lifelong benefits for those injured in battle.

“Veterans should not have to fight their own government for the support and compensation they have earned,” Trudeau says in the mandate, one of 30 cabinet mandate letters made public today.

This is a contrast to the Harper government’s approach, which provided veterans who fell under the controversial New Veterans Charter with a lump sum for their injury rather than a life-long pension.

http://ipolitics.ca/tag/veterans-affairs/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by 6608 on Wed 23 Mar 2016, 18:04

Will showering vets in cash make it better?

OTTAWA — The new federal budget showers the country's veterans with cash, but questions lingered Wednesday about the details and just how far the money will go towards improving the lives of former soldiers.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau's fiscal plan delivers $5.6 billion — $3.7 billion booked in the current fiscal year — for better programs and services for the most critically injured former military members. The money will be spread out over decades, but federal accounting rules require all of it to be recorded now.

One of the marquee Liberal promises to veterans in the last election was to return to a pension-for-life system — or provide soldiers a choice between that and a lump-sum option.

There was no sign of such a change in Tuesday's budget, but Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says the government still backs the promise and needs time to consult on how it can be delivered.

"This is clearly in my mandate letter," Hehr told The Canadian Press in an interview Wednesday. "We're working towards implementing those commitments we made during the election and going forward."

Hehr wouldn't speculate on how long that will take.

Advocates were left wondering about the pledge, in part because the budget raised the lump-sum disability award for wounds suffered in the line of duty to a maximum of $360,000 next year from the current $310,000. That's far below other countries such as Britain, where the payout is closer to $1 million.

Mike Blais, of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, said he remains unhappy and will continue to describe this as the "chump-sum award."

"It's no better than a worker's compensation settlement," said Blais.

He said the award should be equal to what a veteran would have received in a lifetime pension, which was how it worked until Parliament unanimously agreed in 2006 to overhaul the system and pay lump sums for pain and suffering settlements.

As a veteran injured in the 1990s, Blais gets a lifetime pension, which he said will far exceed what soldiers wounded on the battlefield in Afghanistan receive.

"People like me who've been on the old Pension Act will make four times more in pain and suffering than guys like Jody Mitic."

Mitic, a former master corporal, lost both legs in Kandahar in 2007 before going on to become an Ottawa city councillor, author and prominent veterans advocate.

"That's not fair," Blais said.

Between what was announced Tuesday and the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of changes introduced last year by the former Conservative government, an enormous sum of money is now being made available to ex-soldiers.

Veterans ombudsman Guy Parent said this is the time to start gathering data, focusing on outcomes and determining whether there's been a meaningful impact on lives.

"We bring in new benefits (and) we improve the existing ones without necessarily looking at what the impact is on the overall situation on the families and the veterans themselves," Parent said.

Hehr said he agrees with Parent, but cautioned that measuring outcomes is not a simple exercise and questions about quality of life and satisfaction are complex and individual for the wounded.

The treatment of veterans became a lightning-rod for the Harper government and a political embarrassment for a party that prided itself on supporting the troops, particularly after a group of Afghan veterans launched a class-action lawsuit claiming the new system was discriminatory.

The case has been on hold since last year, when the Conservative government embarked on a series of changes meant to address the inequities and rebuild bridges with the veterans community.

Whether Tuesday's budget is enough to end the lawsuit remains an open question.

Don Sorochan, the Vancouver lawyer representing the six claimants, said Wednesday he'll consult his clients, but there will be a meeting with Justice Department lawyers next month.

"To my mind, I'm encouraged by what's been done," Sorochan said.

He said he wants to hear about future plans.

Tuesday's fiscal blueprint also increases the salary replacement for the wounded known as the earning-loss benefit, but ties the minimum benefit to a senior private's salary instead of a basic corporal's salary.

That measure will disadvantage the lower ranks, said Don Leonardo of the group Veterans Canada.



http://www.orangeville.com/news-story/6403107-will-showering-vets-in-cash-make-it-better-/





Cheers
avatar
6608
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 303
Location : NB
Registration date : 2012-06-23

Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Thu 24 Mar 2016, 04:34

Well we finally hear what our MVA has to say about the lifelong pension , this from the above article posted by 6608.

" One of the marquee Liberal promises to veterans in the last election was to return to a pension-for-life system — or provide soldiers a choice between that and a lump-sum option.

There was no sign of such a change in Tuesday's budget, but Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says the government still backs the promise and needs time to consult on how it can be delivered.

"This is clearly in my mandate letter," Hehr told The Canadian Press in an interview Wednesday. "We're working towards implementing those commitments we made during the election and going forward."

Hehr wouldn't speculate on how long that will take.

http://www.orangeville.com/news-story/6403107-will-showering-vets-in-cash-make-it-better-/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Recon031 on Thu 24 Mar 2016, 13:48

Hi Trooper ,

Could you confirm a couple of things please ?

1. The Retroactive lump Sum top up will not happen until Spring of 2017 ?

2. Using myself as the example ..... in 2007 I got a 10 % check $ 25,000 for Tinnitus , what do you suppose my Retro could be with the NEW RATES .... 10 % in 2016 is $ 31,037.86 ...... 10% in 2017 will be $ 35,693.54

3. Do you think in my case i'll get the difference of about $ 10,000

4. What if a Soldier has more than 1 , will he get the Difference for Each one ?

Curious

For Country
Retired Army MasterSniper
Dave Fitzpatrick
avatar
Recon031
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 243
Location : Eastern Ontario
Registration date : 2013-07-19

Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Thu 24 Mar 2016, 14:07

No point in speculating Recon. We're not sure how it's going to be done

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Thu 24 Mar 2016, 14:48

Hi Recon ,

responded to your post in VAC Benefits under , Increased Disability Award & Retro.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MVA says "Keep an eye on the budget"

Post by Guest on Thu 24 Mar 2016, 14:54

recon im thinking your retro would be 11000 .

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Disappointed veterans

Post by Guest on Mon 11 Apr 2016, 16:16

Ted Campbell's Point of View

According to a CTV News report, many veterans, including those who organized the ABC (Anyone But Conservative) campaigns during the last election are disappointed that the “pension for life” promise made to wounded vets was not kept in the 2016 budget. I believe the Minister, Kent Hehr, when he says that more (and I’ll wager difficult) consultations are going to be held in order to get things just right

The problem was the original New Veterans’ Charter which was passed into law by a Liberal government back in 2005. The Charter was the result of long, detailed studies undertaken by the government with, I believe, the dual aims of:

Making veterans’ pensions more consistent with disability pensions in the private sector; and
Saving money ~ these studies were done while the Chrétien/Martin government was, some would say savagely, cutting transfers to the rich provinces in an ultimately successful effort to balance the budget. It made good, partisan, Liberal political sense that everyone, including wounded vets, should “pay” a fair share.
There was only one problem: the New Veterans’
Charter was, and still is,immoral. It was good politics, maybe, arguably even good policy, but it was fundamentally wrong on every human level. In 2005 we had, on the orders of the same Liberal government, troops in contact with a cruel and violent enemy, Canadian soldiers who had enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces under terms of service that included an implicit promise of the same sorts of veterans’ benefits as those who served in Korea enjoyed (that’s not really the right word, but …) suddenly found themselves with a whole new pension scheme that was much, much less favourable than the one that had been explained to them before deployment. In pretty much every other case when the government decided to alter pension benefits for the military, the RCMP and the public service those members who were serving before the new rules came into force were allowed to “opt in” or “opt out” of the new system depending upon how its advantages and disadvantages looked to them ~ we called it “grandfathering.” This option or choice, which should have been a key feature of the New Veterans’ Charter (NVC), and which would have made it morally acceptable, was missing … to make matters worse the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not fix this glaring, immoral flaw in the scheme. He could have and should have done so in 2006/07, when it would have been fairly easy, but he didn’t ~ probably on the advice of the same senior civil servants who advised on the NVC in the first place ~ and after that it was too late, the political damage was done and could not, cannot now, I think, be undone.

I think I understand the arguments that the bureaucrats pout forward circa 2000 and, again, to a new, Conservative, government in 2006:

Canadian veterans’ benefits were extraordinarily generous, especially when compared to the private sector;
Generous veterans’ benefits were understandable after the two great wars but now, in the 21st century, we have an army of well paid professional soldiers, not young volunteers, and their overall compensation should be in line with the civilian norm; and
Then, early 2000s,,] while we were trying to balance the budget, was the right time to do this.
I wouldn’t argue the fiscal aspects of that case with anydirector general or assistant deputy minister who made it; but I would say, as I did in 2006, that it is immoral. You must not change the terms of service for something as critical as pensions when troops are in close combat with an enemy. The soldiers who fought in Afghanistan … are just as worthy as the soldiers who got life-long pensions in previous wars …it was, and remains, the government’s prerogative to change soldiers’ terms of service, but those who had joined before the bill was given royal assent in 2005 should have been “grandfathered.” Putting a handicapped man in place as Minister of Veterans’ Affairs and retired general in as Deputy Minister …doesn’t alter the fact that successive governments Liberal, Conservative and now Liberal again, enacted morally unjustifiable legislation and then failed, in a timely manner, to fix it.

I know what the right answer was in 2005, even in 2006 or 07 … I’m no longer sure that a simple “grandfathering” will work. I sympathize with the view that veterans’ benefits were, traditionally, very generous, perhaps overly generous in too many cases, and that there might be better alternatives … but it was wrong to implement the NVC when troops were in contact with the enemy. The NVC was, simply and irredeemably, wrong in its implementation and then, in the Harper years, wrong in its continuance. I wish Minister Hehr well in his consultations. I don’t hold out much hope for wounded veterans, but, hey, this government is tossing money about in all manner of useless directions, perhaps it can, unlike its predecessors, see the only morally acceptable course open to it … perhaps not.

https://coloneltedcampbell.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/disappointed-veterans/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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