• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

VAC Return to Lifetime Pensions Discussion

All the input is great, keep it all in mind for the next time this subject comes up.

I only say that, because I personally believe, Trudeau and the grits will not win the next election. So this will be dead in the water.

-or-

As per the current governments ethics violations and election promises, to date, I don't believe he'd keep his promise anyway. There is only one group of people this PM seems concerned with, and Veterans is not it.

So, at this point and time, I believe talk of compensation, by this government is moot. However, don't let me stop the discussion, I'm just tossing in my  :2c:
 
      I asked this earlier today but on the wrong board so its a redo, lol

      So if your 70% under the pre 2006 DVA , and 30%  on the NVA after 2006 that =100%. Do those numbers get combined in the new program. ???? VAC could not answer that, they said hmmmm never thought of that.
::)
thanks in advance   
 
cowboy628 said:
      I asked this earlier today but on the wrong board so its a redo, lol

      So if your 70% under the pre 2006 DVA , and 30%  on the NVA after 2006 that =100%. Do those numbers get combined in the new program. ???? VAC could not answer that, they said hmmmm never thought of that.
::)
thanks in advance 

Since there is no legislation, regulation, or policy for the new system yet, that cannot be answered. The law has to pass first to provide the ‘skeleton’, and then various levels of government and VAC will flesh it out to a workable form.
 
Brihard said:
Since there is no legislation, regulation, or policy for the new system yet, that cannot be answered. The law has to pass first to provide the ‘skeleton’, and then various levels of government and VAC will flesh it out to a workable form.
Same query
42% before 2006, what happens to new pensioned condition under new charter?  what if new condition works out to (pick a number it doen'st matter) pretend 20%? Does it mean the whole will be combined and work out to 62%???
What if I get 42% now, and get new cash out amount for 20% new condition? do I need to transfer that to pension for life?
 
GreenArmychick said:
Same query
42% before 2006, what happens to new pensioned condition under new charter?  what if new condition works out to (pick a number it doen'st matter) pretend 20%? Does it mean the whole will be combined and work out to 62%???
What if I get 42% now, and get new cash out amount for 20% new condition? do I need to transfer that to pension for life?

No pension under the Pension Act will be affected by either the NVC, or whatever they call this pending mess.

Using the numbers you tossed out, the 42% under the Pension Act and 20% under either NVC or aforementioned pending mess, are added together only to obtain your overall disability rating.  Though you can certainly have an overall disability rating over 100%, they stop paying out additional Pension Act pension/lump sum awards once you've reached 100%.  Any ratings beyond that are for treatment benefits only.
 
Occam said:
No pension under the Pension Act will be affected by either the NVC, or whatever they call this pending mess.

Using the numbers you tossed out, the 42% under the Pension Act and 20% under either NVC or aforementioned pending mess, are added together only to obtain your overall disability rating.  Though you can certainly have an overall disability rating over 100%, they stop paying out additional Pension Act pension/lump sum awards once you've reached 100%.  Any ratings beyond that are for treatment benefits only.
Sounds like, if awarded a cash award for new disabilty,  before that new system comes into effect, best keep that $$$ since my 42% under pension act is more that the new 100% coming.  Did I get that right? 
 
Any new Disability Award awarded before 1 April 2019 will be in the form of the lump sum payment (status quo).  Supposedly, when the new as-yet-unwritten legislation kicks in on that date, there will be some kind of a lifetime pension (the details of which are incalculable by mere mortals) that takes into account what you've already received as a lump sum.
 
VAC Facebook anouncement:

https://www.facebook.com/VeteransAffairsCanada/?hc_ref=ARQUVstym9rt9vKwCrCTM9bYze4sHssB2VV1oGkVbigzV-gvSAfDbwDeRhcLNPUz6rM&fref=gs&dti=348410141858743&hc_location=group

Join us Today @ 2 PM (ET) on Facebook Live for a Question and Answer session with Minister O'Regan on Pension for Life.
 

Attachments

  • VAC.JPG
    VAC.JPG
    103.8 KB · Views: 210
Starting now.

Lets see if it really is the public asking. ;D
 
You can still access it via the link above.  If you aren't on facebook, you just need to enter the letters/numbers on the security screen and you can view.
Personally, I felt nothing substantive since the announcement in December.
 
I'd like to point out that the issue of those that get CIA/CIAS has been answered. If you are receiving those benefits you will NOT loose any of that money or receive less. For CIAS if you receive it you will be grandfathered in. So if you haven't applied for it and believe you could be entitled to it I suggest applying for it before April 1 2019.

Now it does seem that the CIAS will cease come 1 Apr 2019 and be replaced with the 1% annual increase for loss of carrer progresion.
 
So there we have it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-town-hall-edmonton-1.4515822

Some veterans want more than Ottawa can afford, Trudeau tells town hall
- 1 Feb 18
Prime minister's cross-country tour wraps up with one final town hall in Nanaimo, B.C., Friday

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government is fighting some Canadian veterans in court because they are asking for more than the federal government can afford.

"Why are we still fighting certain veterans groups in court? Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now," Trudeau said, answering a question from a veteran, who said he lost his leg to an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan, during a town hall meeting on Thursday evening in Edmonton.

Some people booed that answer, forcing Trudeau to calm the crowd.

"You are asking for honest answers," he said to the crowd at MacEwan University Sport and Wellness. "The old veterans' charter involved lump-sum payments and very little in the way of services."

A veterans' group said earlier this week it is taking its fight over recent changes to the pension system to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Another veteran said that he did not think Trudeau was really listening to veterans and that his government's restoration of the lifelong pension was a "lacklustre" effort at best.

Before the old lifetime pension was eliminated in favour of a lump sum payment, veterans could have received up to $2,700 per month. Under the restored pension plan the Liberal government introduced, the maximum a wounded soldier would ever see is $1,150 per month.

"I have pledged, and I did pledge and I will continue to pledge that I will do right by you," Trudeau said. "The changes that we've made to our support for veterans are based around recognizing where we went wrong before."

Trudeau said his government's monthly pension amount is lower because it takes into account the cost of services offered by the federal government including post-traumatic-stress treatment and psychological care, support for caregivers and family members who look after wounded veterans and job training for those who can still get back into the job market.

 
Did you honestly expect a different answer. At least now, you know where you stand with this government.
 
Trudeau said his government's monthly pension amount is lower because it takes into account the cost of services offered by the federal government including post-traumatic-stress treatment and psychological care, support for caregivers and family members who look after wounded veterans and job training for those who can still get back into the job market.

Is this so unreasonable?  From the perspective of a taxpayer, I would suggest that it is not.
 
No, it is not unreasonable. Pensions, plus lump sums, plus program spending have to be looked at as a total package, vice each in isolation.

But, many veterans thought they heard the Liberals promise them something else entirely during the last election. That was the basis of my comment.

The reality is, there is a limit to to the political usefulness of veterans. This Government has calculated that they have extracted the maximum usefulness, for the taxpayer resources they have expended.
 
Rifleman62 said:
So there we have it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-town-hall-edmonton-1.4515822

Some veterans want more than Ottawa can afford, Trudeau tells town hall
- 1 Feb 18
Prime minister's cross-country tour wraps up with one final town hall in Nanaimo, B.C., Friday

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government is fighting some Canadian veterans in court because they are asking for more than the federal government can afford.

"Why are we still fighting certain veterans groups in court? Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now," Trudeau said, answering a question from a veteran, who said he lost his leg to an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan, during a town hall meeting on Thursday evening in Edmonton.

Some people booed that answer, forcing Trudeau to calm the crowd.

"You are asking for honest answers," he said to the crowd at MacEwan University Sport and Wellness. "The old veterans' charter involved lump-sum payments and very little in the way of services."

A veterans' group said earlier this week it is taking its fight over recent changes to the pension system to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Another veteran said that he did not think Trudeau was really listening to veterans and that his government's restoration of the lifelong pension was a "lacklustre" effort at best.

Before the old lifetime pension was eliminated in favour of a lump sum payment, veterans could have received up to $2,700 per month. Under the restored pension plan the Liberal government introduced, the maximum a wounded soldier would ever see is $1,150 per month.

"I have pledged, and I did pledge and I will continue to pledge that I will do right by you," Trudeau said. "The changes that we've made to our support for veterans are based around recognizing where we went wrong before."

Trudeau said his government's monthly pension amount is lower because it takes into account the cost of services offered by the federal government including post-traumatic-stress treatment and psychological care, support for caregivers and family members who look after wounded veterans and job training for those who can still get back into the job market.

This is the type of comment that can cause members of the CAF to ponder whether or not the required responsibilities and obligations of service in the CAF can be afforded by individuals any further.
 
....more than we are able to give right now," Trudeau said.....

That's really "rich" considering the spending of this government.

https://twitter.com/ottawaspends


https://globalnews.ca/news/3600967/tracking-federal-government-spending/

NOTEBOOK: How we use Twitter to keep track of thousands of federal government spending announcements
- David Akin - 15 Jul 17

These days, your federal government is spending about $310 billion a year and you may wonder, where on earth does all that money go?

The answer is: Most of it is transferred to provinces and territories; a big chunk is transferred to individuals in the form of old age benefits, child benefits, EI payments and the like; a sizeable chunk is used to pay down the debt; a lot is used to pay 250,000 civil servants, 80,000 or so Canadian Forces members, and around 30,000 members of the RCMP.

Believe it or not, that still leaves lots left over for politicians to hand out. And whenever a politician hands out some money, you can bet there will be a press release so that one and often several politicians can be seen taking some credit (or blame) for handing out the money.

Here’s an MP, Dan Ruimy from B.C., who proudly tweeted a picture of himself handing out a novelty cheque drawn on the federal government’s bank account:(at link)

I’ve been told by PMO sources, by the way, that MPs are largely discouraged from using novelty cheques in funding announcements.

In any event, since March, 2009 whenever a spending announcement is made, I’ve been tracking key details from each spending announcement in a database I maintain. I use that database from time to time to  pull summary information about spending announcement patterns.

For example: As of this writing, the Ontario riding of Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing, held by New Democrat MP Carol Hughes, has had more projects funded during the life of this Parliament than any other riding in the country. Our database has logged 97 different projects in Hughes’ riding worth a combined $54.5 million.

By contrast, just two projects worth a combined $787,669 were approved in which all the money would be spent in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau‘s Montreal riding of Papineau.

Thanks to this database, we can tell you that nearly two years into the 42nd Parliament, the Trudeau government has made about 6,800 different funding announcements letting MPs take credit for a combined $31-billion in spending on everything from a new sewer line to a new roof on a curling club to new research labs to new affordable housing projects.

By contrast, the Harper government, over the entire length of the 41st Parliament, made 7,308 spending announcements for a combined $45 billion.

And every single one of those 13,000-plus spending announcements in the last Parliament and the current one is in my database.

And just about all of those are also on Twitter via a special Twitter account I’ve set up called @OttawaSpends.

Every time I put a spending announcement in my database, I also tweet it out. If you follow @OttawaSpends, you too can track every federal government spending announcement. For example, that photo of the gazebo, er, picnic shelter, pictured above with Liberal MP TJ Harvey was tweeted out like this:(at link)

Continued at link.



 
PPCLI Guy said:
Is this so unreasonable?  From the perspective of a taxpayer, I would suggest that it is not.
I'd suggest to you that if the government cannot afford proper compensation, then they cannot expect unlimited liability from CAF members. Especially true considering we are required to give up charter rights as a condition of enrollment. Charter rights which are apparently worth at least  $10.5m.
 
Back
Top