Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Post by Guest on Wed 18 May 2016, 07:40

not by a longshot .

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Post by Dannypaj on Wed 18 May 2016, 07:41

What is it that they teach you in Basic Training?
It is just a Game and play the game hard, it is your career.
Well, the fight is not over, it just started with fresh eyes and more insight as to what just amounted to a straight up confusing signal from the GOC to VETS.
More and more people are learning what is happening to Veterans and how VAC treats us.
Come on! Really, it just doesn't end like this.
How can the GOC do that without backlash?
They have fixed a lot of stuff, but do people still want the PA or the NVC?
IDK what is the best solution?

My life is a living hell, (ask my wife).
She ask what is wrong with you, I say "I was trained to take lives and protect lives, you are trained as a Registered nurse to preserve life and nurse lives back to health" and now I am trying to come out of this being "military" and letting go of my training and it is hard, adding to the fact of also trying to let go of past experiences from the first day to the your last day of your service to Canada.

Good times, bad times, scary times, god awful times and proud times, it follows you the rest of your life (at least for me).

Straight up! I would never have gone forward for help knowing transitioning from the military to civilian life was going be just as hellish and maybe at times worst. Since now you have been abandoned by your military family your injured and you cannot be what you dream of becoming or accomplishing because of the Universality of Service.  
Anyway I am pretty lost and transitioning is a never ending process.
Only those who served know this bond, even with all  of our squabbling on here, we always have that bond, that bond is the reason we still talk and compare and make sure we hold everyone last person accountable for what amounts to a big deception to the Canadian people if help  is not delivered.
IDK maybe I am just crazy.
I must have been for joining the CAF and believing in their message.
avatar
Dannypaj
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 1081
Age : 40
Location : Halifax
Registration date : 2015-01-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Post by teentitan on Wed 18 May 2016, 10:07

Well Trudeau's wife, Sophie, needs a bigger staff so I guess the money promised for veterans is going to fund Madamme Prime Minister's need.
avatar
teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3248
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Trudeau says if elected he would end the Court case involving Veterans

Post by Trooper on Wed 18 May 2016, 12:12

Trudeau said his government would also end other court cases involving the Conservative government, such as the one where he said the Tories are fighting to deprive veterans of their benefits.

“There are a lot of court cases across this country that this government has taken on to deprive veterans of their benefits, to go after individuals for unreasonable reasons ... we would actually cease (them) if this government changes on Oct. 19.”

There is a current class action lawsuit by ex-soldiers against the government for increased benefits, but that has been put on hold until May 2016.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-if-elected-he-would-not-seek-appeal-to-supreme-court-over-niqab/article26432350/
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5275
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Federal government mum on bringing veterans back to court

Post by Trooper on Wed 18 May 2016, 17:00

The federal government had little to say today when asked about reports that it intends to bring war veterans back to court in an effort to prevent some of Canada’s wounded soldiers from collecting certain benefits.

The two sides in the legal battle —six injured Afghanistan veterans and the federal government — agreed to put the case on hold until after the federal election but as their truce expired on May 15th, the lawyer representing the injured veterans expressed outrage that the lawsuit would continue.

“It’s a betrayal,” Donald Sorochan told the CBC.

When asked about the lawsuit, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr said it would be inappropriate to comment on any lawsuits that are before the courts.

“Nevertheless, we’re moving ahead on our mandate to do better for veterans and their families. We delivered significantly on that in Budget 2016 on earning loss benefit, on the career impact allowance and the disability award. We continue to work

through the mandate letter and to make veterans’ and their families’ lives better,” said Hehr before caucus.

When pressed further about allegations from the Conservatives that the Liberals are backtracking on their promise for veterans – that they won’t have to fight for benefits in court – Hehr referred again to his mandate letter and said the government is working on delivering that to the veterans and their families.

“Well, here’s what we’re doing. We’re concentrating on fulfilling our mandate letter given to me by the Prime Minister. We believe that with the full implementation of that, we will see veterans and their families do better in this country,” said Hehr.

Meanwhile the NDP is slamming the government for betraying their campaign promise.

In a press release issued after question period, the NDP say they are “outraged” by reports that veterans are again being fought in court by their own government “that will deny our heroes their benefits.”

“This comes after the Liberal Party campaigned on bringing back a lifetime pension for veterans,” states the release.

The NDP state that after Conservatives spent $700,000 fighting veterans in court, the Liberal government hired the same lawyer hired by the Conservatives to try to deny that the government owes veterans a special obligation due to their service in this country.

Last year the House unanimously passed an NDP motion that recognizes Canada’s covenant of moral, social, legal, and financial obligation to veterans, continues the release.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/05/18/federal-government-mum-on-bringing-veterans-back-to-court/
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5275
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Pulling a fast one ?

Post by Trooper on Wed 18 May 2016, 17:06

PULLING A FAST ONE ?


http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=873187



VIEW FROM THE HILL


http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=873198

avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5275
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Post by teentitan on Wed 18 May 2016, 17:43

Is it too soon to start calling JT a dictator?
avatar
teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3248
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Post by bigrex on Wed 18 May 2016, 19:37

I guess Hehr has been able have his cake and eat it too, for far too long. He cannot say that they are working on fulfilling the mandate letter, while fighting Veterans in court, that only seek what was promised in that mandate letter, which is the life long pension.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3079
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Post by teentitan on Wed 18 May 2016, 19:52

So if Hehr says he is woring on the mandate letter is he not contradicting himself when he says he can't comment on the lifelong pension because it is before of the court case when the lifelong pension is the reason for the lawsuit?

His appearence, lack of knowledge, and overall self gratification I wonder if he will be the MVA in the fall after the summer break?
avatar
teentitan
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3248
Location : ontario
Registration date : 2008-09-19

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Post by Guest on Wed 18 May 2016, 19:58

MVA Hehr has now declined to be interviewed in the media since the news that the Equitas lawsuit is going back to court has surfaced.  Will this non committal rhetoric be the sign of whats to come from MVA Hehr when questioned about the mandate letter and the Liberal promises unfulfilled?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=873187

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Liberals accused of breaking promise to uphold 'sacred obligation' to veterans

Post by Trooper on Thu 19 May 2016, 04:42

The New Democrats and Conservatives are accusing the Liberals of breaking their election promise to uphold a ‘sacred obligation to veterans,’ after the justice department moved forward with a court case that would give the government the option of denying lifelong pensions to injured soldiers.
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair accused the Liberals during daily question period in the House of Commons of “trying to stop (veterans) from getting the benefits they deserve,” despite “campaigning on a black-and-white promise to end the Conservative court case against veterans.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded that “veterans who have served this country extraordinarily well deserve more than people trying to play politics on their backs.”

“Veterans across this country know that in Budget 2016 we put forward historic measures that will fix the 10 years of neglect,” Trudeau added.
Former veterans affairs minister Erin O’Toole -- whose government came to an agreement with the plaintiffs of the lawsuit last June, putting it on hold until this month -- accused Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould Wednesday of “attacking veterans” and allowing a “truce” to “fall apart.”
“The prime minister promised to uphold the sacred obligation our country owes to our veterans,” O’Toole said, “yet his justice minister has turned her lawyers on veterans.”
Quebec Conservative MP Alupa Clarke also accused the Liberals of breaking promises. “The Minister of Veterans Affairs appears two-faced,” he said.
Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr responded by saying that he is committed to treating veterans “with care, compassion and respect.”
“Budget 2016 had delivered on a lot of those items, including financial security for many of our most disabled veterans,” the minister added.
Hehr’s department said he was not available for an interview, but issued a statement that said he “was given a mandate to re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for injured Veterans and remains committed to this.”

The court case in question was brought forward by six veterans of the Afghan war in 2012, who argued that new rules introduced in 2006 discriminated against them by offering small lump sum payments for their injuries, as opposed to the lifelong pensions that veterans of previous wars have received.
The case sparked a public outcry in 2014 when the Conservative government’s justice department argued that the government does not have a special obligation, or “social covenant” with veterans to provide pensions for injured soldiers.
After that outcry, the Conservatives introduced measures aimed at placating veterans, including pain and suffering awards, expanded access to permanent impairment allowances and a bill to codify the country’s sacred obligation.
The Liberal election platform also stated that the government has “a sacred obligation” to veterans and went a step further – and vowed to “re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans.”
Trudeau also said while campaigning that he would end court cases "that (the Conservative) government has taken on to deprive veterans of their benefits."
The promises proved especially popular with veterans groups during the campaign.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Don Sorochan, said last summer that the proposed changes meant they were willing to give the government some time to see if the situation improved. He also said the upcoming election campaign represented “a nice competitive bidding (process) to see who's going to do better.”

A judge put the case on hold last June.

‘A Betrayal’

Sorochan told CTV’s Power Play Wednesday that what the justice department has done now is ask the court to rule on whether the Conservatives were correct about there being no social contract with veterans.
“When that argument was made in the courts, there was a public outcry saying, ‘How can you say there’s nothing special warranted for people that put their life on the line for their country?’” Sorochan said.
He added that the argument was “repudiated by the Conservative government in its last days, was campaigned against by the Liberal government, and was certainly not accepted by any of the Liberals that I dealt with during the election campaign."
Sorochan said he believes “progress" was made on programs for benefits by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. He said that despite “some disappointment” that the Liberals had not honoured their pensions promise in their first budget, they may still be planning to do so.
However, he said the “gist of what the Liberals are arguing,” is that “the government happens to want to do good things for veterans now but it has no obligation to do them.
Sorochan later said he sees it as a “betrayal” that the Liberals – who some disabled veterans had campaigned for – appear to be asking the court to rule that there is “no social covenant.”
“This position … is making liars of us when we said to people the Liberal Party was putting forward a platform acceptable to veterans,” he said.
“If this government wants to retract from their position that there’s a social covenant,” he added, “they should stand up in court and do so.”
Plaintiff Brian McKenna, who served in Bosnia and Afghanistan, said Wednesday that he is “pretty ticked off,” but committed to seeing the case through.
“We’re not going away,” he added.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-accused-of-breaking-promise-to-uphold-sacred-obligation-to-veterans-1.2908124


avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5275
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Hauling Veterans Back To Court Over Benefits A 'Disgrace,' Opposition Says

Post by Trooper on Thu 19 May 2016, 14:24

The Liberal government is a "disgrace" for sending wounded veterans back to court to fight for benefits, opposition parties charged Wednesday.

Veterans have been arguing the government has a sacred obligation to its soldiers and that the lump-sum payment wounded veterans receive under the New Veterans Charter — as opposed to the pension that was offered before 2006 — is inadequate compensation, as they receive less money over the course of a lifetime.

Government lawyers outraged many veterans by asserting that the federal government has no extraordinary obligation to those who have fought for the country.

Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr speaks with veterans at a stakeholder summit at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa on Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2015. (Photo: Justin Tang/CP)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Wednesday said that after "10 years of neglect" by the former Conservative government there are a lot of issues to resolve, and he's proud of the work Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr is doing on the file.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair took issue with the government's stance, saying after "campaigning on a black and white promise to end the Conservative court case against veterans the Liberals are taking them back to court with the same lawyers, and the same arguments, to try and block them from getting the benefits they deserve and that the Liberals promised. It's disgusting."

"This is a disgrace, it is shameful. The Liberals must recognize Canada's moral, social, legal and financial covenant with veterans," NDP MP Irene Mathyssen added, noting the latest legal move will add to the $700,000 bill the Conservatives racked up fighting these veterans in court.

Trudeau condemned Mulcair for "playing politics" with veterans, but offered no reason as to why justice department lawyers are ending a legal truce and blocking the class action lawsuit launched by six injured Afghan veterans.

CBC News first reported Tuesday that Hehr signed off on sending the lawsuit back to the B.C. Court of Appeal after the legal truce — formally called an abeyance agreement — expired Sunday, a move that has been described by some as a "betrayal" after veterans groups campaigned with Liberals ahead of the Oct. 19 vote.

The Liberals have also put Paul Vickery back on the case, the government lawyer who was removed by former Conservative veterans minister Erin O'Toole in 2014 after a period of fractious relations between the Harper government and advocacy groups.

"The prime minister promised to uphold the sacred obligation our country owes to our veterans and yet his justice minister has turned her lawyers on veterans," O'Toole said Wednesday in question period.

Hehr told the House he could not comment on issues before the court, but said the Conservatives "should applaud us for what we're doing," rhyming off changes made in the most recent budget, including reopening service offices, increasing the disability award and boosting the earnings loss benefit for injured veterans and expanding access to the permanent impairment allowance.

He also said he is dedicated to implementing all the items his mandate letter, including lifetime pensions, but said that "veterans stakeholders have asked us to get this right and not rush."

Veterans affairs minister 'two-faced'

The veterans promised to drop the litigation if Hehr provided timelines for enacting the priorities outlined in his mandate letter. But, according to Donald Sorochan, the lawyer representing the veterans, the minister has been noncommittal on timelines for implementing key promises, namely when lifetime pensions will be restored.

Government lawyers have informed Sorochan that they will revert to the legal position they initially argued in the Harper era, namely that the federal government has no extraordinary obligation to those who have fought for the country and that Canada does not have a social covenant with veterans.

They will also seek to justify the lump-sum payments, arguing that a "scheme providing benefits cannot be said to amount to a deprivation merely because claimant views the benefits as insufficient."

These positions were ultimately repudiated by the Harper government who sought to patch up relations with veterans, many of whom had become vocal opponents of the Tories.

The fact the Liberal government is now reverting to the same arguments that the Conservatives acknowledged were problematic has exasperated veterans groups.

"I am bitterly disappointed that I took some flack for trusting this government and now people are telling me 'I told you so, the government couldn't be trusted.' They were right," Sorochan said. "I think [Hehr's] an inexperienced minister with little background on the veterans affairs file and his chief of staff comes from the insurance industry where this type of approach is common, they're motivated to increase profits," Sorochan said.

Conservative Veterans Affairs critic Alupa Clarke also chided Hehr for the latest move, calling him "two-faced" for appearing publicly supportive of wounded veterans while his government is taking them to court over benefits his party promised to enact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/18/hauling-veterans-back-to-court-over-benefits-a-disgrace-opposition-says_n_10037258.html
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5275
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Why is Trudeau kicking veterans to the curb?

Post by Trooper on Fri 20 May 2016, 05:39

No, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shouldn’t have lost his cool in the House of Commons the other day. When a vote didn’t proceed fast enough for his liking, Trudeau morphed into a spoiled toddler who wanted his toy RIGHT NOW, rushing the floor, grabbing one opposition MP and elbowing another. Despite the PM’s apologies, it remains a bully moment that cast a shadow over his party’s ‘sunny ways’.

Unfortunately, it’s also overshadowing the far more serious instance of bullying that the Liberals are inflicting on Canadian veterans. This week, the government chose to revive the Harper government’s efforts to shut down a class action lawsuit launched by six war veterans against the federal government.

The vets claimed the Tories were discriminating against combatants in modern-day conflicts, such as Afghanistan, by offering them lump-sum payments, rather than the life-long pensions paid to veterans of older conflicts, such as the Korean War. The issue cost the Conservatives support among veterans’ groups — a traditional base of support — and became a black eye for a government that loved to play up the importance of Canada’s military.

In June 2015 the two sides called a truce, with the government staying the lawsuit to allow the plaintiffs to determine whether further changes to compensation would satisfy their concerns. That truce has now expired, and when the two sides could not reach an out-of-court settlement, the new Liberal government decided to revive the legal argument the previous government was trying to use to scuttle the lawsuit — that the federal government has no ‘sacred covenant’ with veterans.

Which, of course, makes a mockery of the explicit promise in the Liberals’ campaign platform: “We will demonstrate the respect and appreciation for our veterans that Canadians rightly expect, and ensure that no veteran has to fight the government for the support and compensation they have earned.”

The Liberals are, in fact, doing the exact opposite of what they promised — forcing veterans to fight for just compensation in a court battle that could drag on for years.

The Liberal platform further stated that the federal government has “a social covenant with all veterans and their families that we must meet with both respect and gratitude.” That echoes a resolution put forward last year by NDP MP Fin Donnelly, and adopted unanimously by all parties: “That Canadians recognize that the federal government has a moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation to the women and men who courageously serve our country.”

Recognizing this obligation was crucial, because government lawyers had argued in court that “at no time in Canada’s history has any alleged ‘social contract’ or ‘social covenant’ having the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs been given effect in any statute, regulation or as a constitutional principle written or unwritten.”

to the curb?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shakes hands with a Canadian veteran at the National War Memorial following Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ottawa, Wednesday, November 11, 2015. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
No, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shouldn’t have lost his cool in the House of Commons the other day. When a vote didn’t proceed fast enough for his liking, Trudeau morphed into a spoiled toddler who wanted his toy RIGHT NOW, rushing the floor, grabbing one opposition MP and elbowing another. Despite the PM’s apologies, it remains a bully moment that cast a shadow over his party’s ‘sunny ways’.

Unfortunately, it’s also overshadowing the far more serious instance of bullying that the Liberals are inflicting on Canadian veterans. This week, the government chose to revive the Harper government’s efforts to shut down a class action lawsuit launched by six war veterans against the federal government.

The vets claimed the Tories were discriminating against combatants in modern-day conflicts, such as Afghanistan, by offering them lump-sum payments, rather than the life-long pensions paid to veterans of older conflicts, such as the Korean War. The issue cost the Conservatives support among veterans’ groups — a traditional base of support — and became a black eye for a government that loved to play up the importance of Canada’s military.

In June 2015 the two sides called a truce, with the government staying the lawsuit to allow the plaintiffs to determine whether further changes to compensation would satisfy their concerns. That truce has now expired, and when the two sides could not reach an out-of-court settlement, the new Liberal government decided to revive the legal argument the previous government was trying to use to scuttle the lawsuit — that the federal government has no ‘sacred covenant’ with veterans.

Which, of course, makes a mockery of the explicit promise in the Liberals’ campaign platform: “We will demonstrate the respect and appreciation for our veterans that Canadians rightly expect, and ensure that no veteran has to fight the government for the support and compensation they have earned.”

open quote 761b1bThe Liberals are, in fact, doing the exact opposite of what they promised — forcing veterans to fight for just compensation in a court battle that could drag on for years.
The Liberal platform further stated that the federal government has “a social covenant with all veterans and their families that we must meet with both respect and gratitude.” That echoes a resolution put forward last year by NDP MP Fin Donnelly, and adopted unanimously by all parties: “That Canadians recognize that the federal government has a moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation to the women and men who courageously serve our country.”

Recognizing this obligation was crucial, because government lawyers had argued in court that “at no time in Canada’s history has any alleged ‘social contract’ or ‘social covenant’ having the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs been given effect in any statute, regulation or as a constitutional principle written or unwritten.”

Trudeau himself refuted this argument, both inside the House of Commons and on the campaign trail. “For ten years, Stephen Harper draped himself in the Canadian flag, then betrayed the men and women who fought for it,” he said. “Our servicemen and women, who have put their lives on the line for their country, stand for the very best of what it means to be Canadian. We have a social covenant with all veterans and their families — a sacred obligation we must meet with both respect and gratitude.”

The decision to block the lawsuit again has left veterans’ groups in a state of utter shock. “It’s a betrayal,” veterans lawyer Donald Sorochan told CBC News. “They have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie. I sat at tables (during the campaign) with some of the people who are now in cabinet. Those ministers have been turned into liars by the Department of Justice.”

Why are the Liberals going back on their word? No one — not the prime minister, not the Justice Department, not Minister of Veterans Affairs Kent Hehr — is offering an explanation. When questioned about the decision in the House of Commons, Hehr stated he is committed to treating veterans “with care, compassion and respect,” according to CTV News, adding that “Budget 2016 had delivered on a lot of those items, including financial security for many of our most disabled veterans.”

But that’s not what the Liberals promised. They are, in fact, doing the exact opposite of what they promised — forcing veterans to fight for just compensation in a court battle that could drag on for years.

That’s bullying, plain and simple — and Canadians shouldn’t stand for it. Trudeau should reverse the decision to appeal, even if it means another mea culpa on the floor of the House.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/05/19/why-is-trudeau-kicking-veterans-to-the-curb/
avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5275
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Liberals, Tories Accuse Each Other Of Hypocrisy Over Veterans Lawsuit

Post by Trooper on Fri 20 May 2016, 05:47

The Liberal government's decision to battle injured veterans in court has sparked accusations of hypocrisy on both sides of the House of Commons.

Two Conservative MPs, who also happen to be veterans, rose in question period on Thursday to charge that Liberals were breaking a pledge that vets would never again need to fight the government for benefits or respect.

At one point, Erin O'Toole, a veterans affairs minister under the former Conservative government, directly called out Andrew Leslie, the chief government whip. Leslie previously commanded troops in Afghanistan as a lieutenant-general.

While Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr defended his government, he provided no explanation for its course of action after a legal truce with disabled Afghan vets expired this week.

Alupa Clarke, the Tory critic for veterans affairs and a former master bombardier, claimed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was showing "pure hypocrisy" by promising to respect ex-soldiers on the campaign trail, only to change his mind once elected.

“I find it ironic that this member opposite can stand and accuse this government of anything.”
— Veteran Affairs Minister Kent Hehr

Clarke asked for confirmation the Liberals intend to drop a legal challenge to a suit launched in 2012 by six injured veterans arguing modern soldiers wounded in battle receive less generous compensation than those who served decades before.

Hehr shot back saying, "I find it ironic that this member opposite can stand and accuse this government of anything. This came about because of years of neglect by the former government on this file."

'The prime minister misled veterans'

Hehr pointed to the $5.6-billion funding pledge, over six years, earmarked for vets in the first Liberal budget. He said the fund would provide ex-soldiers with financial security. The spending plan did not, however, mark a return to the lifetime pensions Liberals promised veterans during the election campaign.

"The truth is very clear, the prime minister misled veterans in the last election," Clarke said, adding that the previous Tory government didn't make false promises or give false hope.

"Canada needs a respectful leader, a coherent leader and not a schoolchild who manhandles his colleagues," the critic said, referring to Trudeau's dust-up in the House a day earlier.

Hehr responded by rhyming off how Tories closed nine veterans affairs offices, cut support staff, and ignored ex-soldiers for "10 long years." Vets, he said, will do much better with Liberals in charge.

O'Toole, a former captain in the Royal Canadian Air Force, then asked when Leslie would "stand up against the arrogance of his government" and stop "driving injured veterans into court." O'Toole said Leslie made a solemn vow to vets that his party would bring back lifetime pensions and other measures.

"When will chief government whip, a retired Canadian Armed Forces general, stand up and live up to the promises he made to our veterans?" O'Toole asked.

But it was the Liberals' point-man on the veterans file who responded.

Again, Hehr said he was acting on his mandate letter to improve things for veterans by, among other things, making disability awards more generous.

"It's really above the height of hypocrisy, these questions regarding this file from the former government," he said.

Mulcair to Trudeau: Show 'shred of decency'

Trudeau was not in question period Thursday but was grilled on the matter by NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair a day earlier.

The NDP leader said Liberals were taking vets to court with "the same lawyers and the same arguments" as the last government. He called it "disgusting," and pointed to a CBC News report in which the veterans' lawyer described the situation as a "betrayal."

Mulcair urged Trudeau to "show a shred of decency" and change course.

"It's really above the height of hypocrisy, these questions regarding this file from the former government."
— Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr

The prime minister said ex-soldiers deserve more than "people trying to play politics on their backs." Trudeau lauded the investments in his budget and work done by Hehr so far, while conceding there is more to do.

CBC News was first to report this week that federal lawyers informed the B.C. Court of Appeals Sunday that they would defend the lawsuit after both sides failed to settle.

The Harper government spent more than $700,000 on the lengthy court battle. In a strategy that outraged vets, federal lawyers argued Ottawa has no special obligation or "social contract" with ex-soldiers, and that it was unfair to hold that government to promises made by another prime minister nearly a century ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/19/liberals-tories-veterans-lawsuit-canada_n_10054044.html

avatar
Trooper
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 5275
Location : New Brunswick
Registration date : 2013-02-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs

Post by Dannypaj on Fri 20 May 2016, 05:58

His the whip, Eh!
How American!
I am Canadian and I was A proud Canadian. I am A Veteran (not sure what kind), but yet a Veteran and this is shameful and it is just the start.
Now what?
avatar
Dannypaj
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 1081
Age : 40
Location : Halifax
Registration date : 2015-01-29

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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