Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"

[Pusser]

I think folks need to do a bit more reading on this line about letting terrorists back into the country, not charging them and teaching them poetry instead.  The articles I've been reading have pointed out that being a member of a terrorist organization is not in and of itself a crime, notwithstanding that providing support to it is.  Furthermore, the government has not said that returning "terrorists" will not be held accountable.  People returning to Canada who are suspected of having committed criminal/terrorist acts can still be charged.  Holding people accountable (i.e. charging and possibly punishing them) and rehabilitating them are not mutually exclusive.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Don't tell me that you seriously believe anything meaningful or lasting will be done with these terrorists.  I have absolutely zero faith that this government will handle this any better than say the Phoenix Pay System or Long Gun Registry.  "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" tripe from the PM doesn't inspire any faith in me.  Count me out as a believer.  Hell, even Goodale admits he has no clue where all these POS are.  This will all end in tears and not for the terrorists, I am sure.  Kum ba yah, my ass.

 

[captloadie]

My question would be is do we apply the same logic to all individuals who leave Canada to fight under a different flag. If we have individuals fighting for the Kurds, or the Iraqi's, or the Syrians, should we also charge them? Ack, we all agree ISIL are bad. I think we can all agree that the Syrian regime isn't following what we would find acceptable western values. What if we find that certain Kurdish freedom fighters are really warlords seeking wealth instead of a nation state. Are Canadians fighting for/with those groups now lumped in as terrorists?
/end tangent

 

[jollyjacktar]

Would any of these new people be "Little Johnny Jihad's" wanting to do what Daesh aspire to do in the West, once they came marching home again?  If yes, then they should be hammered flat too, if not, I'm not as concerned.  Personally speaking.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I think folks need to do a bit more reading on this line about letting terrorists back into the country, not charging them and teaching them poetry instead.  The articles I've been reading have pointed out that being a member of a terrorist organization is not in and of itself a crime, notwithstanding that providing support to it is.

Participation in activity of terrorist group
83.18 (1) Every one who knowingly participates in or contributes to, directly or indirectly, any activity of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Prosecution
(2) An offence may be committed under subsection (1) whether or not

    (a) a terrorist group actually facilitates or carries out a terrorist activity;
    (b) the participation or contribution of the accused actually enhances the ability of a terrorist group to facilitate or carry out a terrorist activity; or
    (c) the accused knows the specific nature of any terrorist activity that may be facilitated or carried out by a terrorist group.

...
2001, c. 41, s. 4.

Leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist group
83.181 Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada, or goes or attempts to go on board a conveyance with the intent to leave Canada, for the purpose of committing an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under subsection 83.18(1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.
2013, c. 9, s. 6.

Out of the estimated 200+ Canadians who returned from fighting with ISIS how many have been charged and convicted of the above offenses?  To me joining a terrorist group sounds like participating in a terrorist activity.

Furthermore, the government has not said that returning "terrorists" will not be held accountable.  People returning to Canada who are suspected of having committed criminal/terrorist acts can still be charged.

 

Maybe it's just me but there doesn't feel to be a big push by the government to prosecute any of them.


(That's going off but would add severe insult to injury if I was a wounded vet)

 

[Lumber]

Or do you help, possibly ruining someone's life, by lying to them about the truth of what's happening, to keep your recruiting numbers up?

Who said anything about lying? Tell them the truth. It's a caveat to joining, not an argument for not joining.

"If you're going to join up to serve your country, just remember they don't have your back in all circumstances. Here's a list of the way the government is failing our soldiers, sailors, and aviators."

Sounds a lot better than:

"Don't join! You'll get tons of pay and benefits, but if you're injured they'll screw you hard."

As far as I'm concerned, the first guy they convince to turn away or withdraw their application is the next lookout who would'be spotted the next MV Crystal. All shots you don't take, miss.

Actually, I'm probably going to regret saying this, but are our vets getting screwed hard? To be fair, I've never been injured, and never had to deal with VAC, but at least we have benefits, don't we? Life pensions would be better, but we do have pensions. They are more than enough for most people, are they not? Yes, there are example where the maximum penalty is not enough, but is that the majority case, or the minority case?

Would:

"Don't join! You'll get tons of pay and benefits, and great pensions, including if you're injured, but there is a small chance that depending on your injury, you could find yourself in a situation where your government compensation doesn't satisfy the financial burden caused by your specific injury."

Be more accurate?

Again, I'm more curious for enlightment than making a claim here.

I'm going to regret this...

 

[jollyjacktar]

Lumber, l used to actively try and bring young folks into the Navy, my pre-amalgamation trade in particular.

I don't anymore.  Why don't l, you might ask?  Because it wouldn't be ethical as l don't believe in the direction we're going.  I do not, cannot, and won't sing the praises of this amalgamation that was forced on us.

I'm thankful l don't have subordinates here as l couldn't try and sell them on it.  Not that that's a worry as they're seeing it for what it is and voting with their feet in many cases.  We're bleeding out so fast l don't think quick clot would help.  Legacy HT releases are 3 x the norm and accelerating.

What do l tell young kids now? Go Air Force.

 

[Teager]

Lumber the benefits sound good the problem is getting access to them. A lot of vets not just a few have to fight tooth and nail to get what's owed to them. It can take years to get access to benefits and in the meantime time you could be losing your house and your family could be falling apart due to financial stress and health issues of yours that may not get timely treatment to address. It's a meat grinder of a system so get through easily but a lot do not.

 

[Lumber]

Lumber, l used to actively try and bring young folks into the Navy, my pre-amalgamation trade in particular.

I don't anymore.  Why don't l, you might ask?  Because it wouldn't be ethical as l don't believe in the direction we're going.  I do not, cannot, and won't sing the praises of this amalgamation that was forced on us.

I'm thankful l don't have subordinates here as l couldn't try and sell them on it.  Not that that's a worry as they're seeing it for what it is and voting with their feet in many cases.  We're bleeding out so fast l don't think quick clot would help.  Legacy HT releases are 3 x the norm and accelerating.

What do l tell young kids now? Go Air Force.

Air Force is always a good route, but why discorage them from joining the Navy all together? What about the other trades? If a young friend of your's or your familie's was to ask you what you thought about going W End or NWO, would you say "no way"?

 

[Lumber]

Lumber the benefits sound good the problem is getting access to them. A lot of vets not just a few have to fight tooth and nail to get what's owed to them. It can take years to get access to benefits and in the meantime time you could be losing your house and your family could be falling apart due to financial stress and health issues of yours that may not get timely treatment to address. It's a meat grinder of a system so get through easily but a lot do not.

Good point, thank you. I neglected this group from my view and focused solely on those at the far far end of the problem.

Nonetheless, I still don't see this as a reason to discourage people from joining the forces.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Air Force is always a good route, but why discorage them from joining the Navy all together? What about the other trades? If a young friend of your's or your familie's was to ask you what you thought about going W End or NWO, would you say "no way"?

Yes, yes l would.  I think we've lost the plot.

 

[NavyShooter]

Air Force is always a good route, but why discorage them from joining the Navy all together? What about the other trades? If a young friend of your's or your familie's was to ask you what you thought about going W End or NWO, would you say "no way"?

Lumber,

I have, in the past, actively helped people join.  My wife's second cousin twice (or is it three times?) removed sat in m kitchen with me for two hours the day before he went to the recruiting center.  He's now a PO2.  He's one of at least 5 that I've helped along, or helped in, or helped re-muster over.  I've done my part...I've hired my relief five times over.

That said, since my trade 'flipped the switch' to become W Eng, I don't believe we've trained a single technician.  We've trained maintainers.  Best analogies I can think of are that we have someone who can change the oil, but doesn't know why they should look at the old oil for sheen, particulate, odour, or colour.  Someone who can change a spark plug, but doesn't know how to gap it, or more importantly, WHY you would gap it. 

We used to get software release notes with the old CCS update CD's, and I'd read those notes to figure out what changes they'd made to the different modules like the NA (Nav) module, or the HMS interface software, or how the GDB (Global Data Base) module shifted to enable TACTAS contacts to be crossed over to SCS then pushed to the ASWC.  Now, the concept of doing anything like that seems lost.  That's all at the level of the developers and LM...not our maintainers.

If Chris (the PO2) were to sit in my kitchen today, I could not in good conscience tell him that my trade is one that he should join.  I was, once, able to suggest that the HT or ET trades were good options....that's now quite up in the air.

Why?

Well, as I said, we call ourselves 'technicians' but I don't think we have trained a new one in six years.  We cut our training in half to speed the process of getting techs to the fleet faster.  The goal at the QL3 (RQOS) level was to be capable of bringing a sailor in the door at St Jean, and then onto a ship within 12 months.  The things we gave up to enable that goal...well...we went from a stand-alone PC Maintenance and repair and Fiber-Optic course, plus a LAN/WAN course, 3 phases, about a month of training.  Now we have 59 x 50 minute periods according to the last time I examined the QSP...and that's for everything Network related.  We don't train Fiber-Optic repair.  That capability resides in FMF now, not the fleet.

We're also looking at ever aging ships...with no great prospect of seeing replacements for the Frigates until...what... the mid 2020s?  Is that being optimistic the way things are going with the NSPS?  So, our oldest Halifax Class ship will have been in the water for almost 35 years at that point.  The newest one will be almost 30.  The older the ships get, the greater the maintenance load. 

With a completely reorganized MARTECH trade managing most of the critical hull systems, and the legacy Hull techs, as mentioned, flowing out the door almost like water out of a fire-hose, what's going to happen when one of our ships goes bump in the night?  What's going to happen when we have another major fire onboard?  What's going to happen when the hulls crack after years of being driven hard?

There's 4 million dollars worth of left-over steel that was placed in lay-down areas out at Shearwater by Hangar 4 after the HCM project was finished.  That's probably steel that should be in the hulls of our ships right now.  (That's a supposition...I'm not a hull surveyor.)

I'm not done with the Navy yet.  It's a beast of a thing, it ebbs and flows, there's good and bad, and right now, personally, the good still outweighs the bad, and I'm in a place where I can influence some things to the good.  So I'll do that. 

Could I recommend someone else, family, friend, or stranger, to follow my path today?  No.  I could not.

And that's a sad state of affairs for me to consider after spending more of my life in uniform than out. 

I'll go have a glass of rum now and ponder that all for a bit.

Deep thoughts.

NS

Two additional data points - I was Senior Instructor for W Eng SONAR Techs in 2012/13, and a Senior Instructor at DC Div in 2015/16. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

:goodpost:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I respectfully disagree. The average Canadian may not actually know any vets or serving members for that matter. Even if Vets are loud and proud, I don't think Vets issues will sway an election/popular opinion. The demographic is pretty small per capita and many (most?) are already vehemently anti JT/Liberal.

If the election was held + / - say...5-7 day from Remembrance Day....maybe the public in general would really care about veterans and support to them.

People have said on here before that Canadian public support is " a mile wide but only an inch deep".  I think, myself, that assessment is overly generous.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I was thinking about this a lot after I posted.

I'm definitely in that boat. There's a large number issues that have caused me to lose faith in the system. The culminating point for me was reading we're letting terrorists back into Canada, not charging them. (I feel absolutely betrayed)

I'd be very honest about my views (like telling someone to get college before joining and how the family first is bukkshit) but in the context of this thread I wouldn't actively all of a sudden protest a recruiting office because I didn't get my money the liberals promised.  If that makes sense.

I (and a lot of my co-workers) put a lot of time and effort into trying to find these...individuals...over XX months and XXX missions over Iraq and Syria, putting our meat on the line for the same country who is now 'welcoming them home with open arms'.  Every minute I spent trying to find these f&&ks and get them into the targeting cycle, I was away from my wife.  I think that is possibly what makes me the angriest, the times my wife sat home alone, worrying and wondering.  Now, her sacrifice of 'going it alone' all those months was for...what.  For one of those fucksicles to move in next door?

My loyalty gauge is either faulty or reading low on this one.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My question would be is do we apply the same logic to all individuals who leave Canada to fight under a different flag. If we have individuals fighting for the Kurds, or the Iraqi's, or the Syrians, should we also charge them? Ack, we all agree ISIL are bad. I think we can all agree that the Syrian regime isn't following what we would find acceptable western values. What if we find that certain Kurdish freedom fighters are really warlords seeking wealth instead of a nation state. Are Canadians fighting for/with those groups now lumped in as terrorists?
/end tangent

Are any of these hypothetical situation involving a group recognized by our government and laws as a terrorist group? If so then the answer lies here.  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-16.html

The difference is with the (assumed world-wide, IMO) fact that ISIS fits the bill as a terrorist group, Canada has been engaging them in combat for XX months to aide in their destruction, so the question, regarding the situation with returning ISIS fighters..is relatively clear.  Isn't it?

Why cloud the issue WRT to ISIS fighters with "what ifs".  What is the point or value?  Trying to compare apples to apples by painting bananas red??

 

[NavyShooter]

I've had my rum, and on further pondering, realised that I missed the point of this thread.

Does Canada have a Sacred Trust and an obligation to it's troops? 

Yes.  It does.

Is the apparent re-entry into Canada by some of the very same ISIS terrorists that our guys have been boots on the ground chasing and hunting a breach of that trust?

Yes.  It sure looks like it to me. 

Retraining and flowers and beads be damned.  Look at how effective our criminal justice system is at reforming criminals?  What is the percentage of those who have 'paid their debt to society' that re-offend?  70%?  80%?  What's the likelihood that this training will work for our friendly repatriated ISIS fighters....probably similar....?  And who are they most likely to target?  Historically, we can look to the fall of 2015 and categorically state that it's those in uniform....Nathan and Patrice. 


Is the change from a small life-long pension to a mediocre one-time payout a breach of that sacred trust? 


Some courts have said yes, some have said no. 


If the amount of the payout was actually enough for that troop to survive on for the rest of their lives, I don't think we'd be arguing this.  But, that payout is tiny, and when it is the only income for an injured troop....well....what do they do when it runs out?


Is the payment of 10.5 million dollars to a boy who was active with our enemies, carried a handful of hands, and killed a medic an apparent slap in the face of that sacred trust? 


Damn straight. 


Was nukfutz mistreated in Guantanamo?  Was the government of the day responsible?  Did they do everything in their power to help him?  Answer yes and no as appropriate, but the sniff test on this one to anyone who's spent time in uniform is a slap in the face with one of those 5 pound bags we talk about now and then.


If the Government of Canada does not have a Sacred Trust owed to those who wear a uniform, does that same government still have the moral impetus to place those in uniform in a position of unlimited liability? 


There's some deep-rum-soaked thoughts that I'll leave here as I head to bed.


Go ahead and rip me a new one for my thoughts on all this if you want.  I'll read it tomorrow. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

I can only award you points once a day.  This would be 2x if l could.  Good post.

 

[FJAG]

I can only award you points once a day.  This would be 2x if l could.  Good post.

I took care of it for you.

:cheers:

 

[brihard]

There’s a huge flaw in simply comparing the disability pension to the disability award, but ignoring that under the present system there are also monthly income supports. The Earnings Loss Benefit of 90% pre-release salary is not bad at all. The disability pension, while tax free, is not exactly huge. While the most severely injured under the old system - 98% or higher - would stack EXceptional Incapacity Allowance on top of the disability pension, anyone injured at 97% or below is only getting that relatively modest disability pension. Take pretty much anyone Sgt/Capt or above, or anyone making spec pay, and even compared to a 90s% disability pension, their ELB will likely come out higher. Take someone who’s at say 60% disability and unable to work at anything close to their old income, and the NVC comes out favorably. The pension act favors the 98%+ crowd, survivors, those who can still work gainfully, and Privates whose pay for ELB determination is low. Most others whose employment is impacted will be more advantageously served by 90% ELB and eventually RISB.

That is not to say there is not room to improve. The VAC stakeholders policy advisory group came up with a pretty good structure of benefits that would stack appropriately and would be calculated to not leave anyone at less than what they would receive under pension act. What I am hearing suggests that the pension option will necessarily integrate to some extent with benefits like ELB.

Other aspects of NVC, like vocational rehab, are very desirable. Ironically, the RCMP veterans’ association had made representations to the effect that RCMP vets - who are under the same pre-2006 Pension Act system - would benefit from some of the NVC services.