• 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

meni0n said:
I'm now just as confused as vac if we'll be able to take the extra amount as a lump sum or not.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk

I have been scouring the page more and more today after the discussion with my CM.
I have found a few spots that have indicated those at 100%,  Will not be able to, because they are at the max lump sum already.


those less, yes they can, up to $365000, or whatever the 2019 Index is set to on March 31st 2019. So those near that would be best to take that full amount,

So those people with $2 monthly or even up to $300 expected per month would be better off (on an average situation to take the lump sum)
 
standingdown said:
I'd say it's now pretty clear!

Thanks for posting that upandatom

No Problem, part of my issues are I cant have Grey areas, has to be black or white, yes or no. So I will scour things for the full picture.
 
Considering CAF/VAC are essentially one giant grey area...I definitely feel for you. Hang in there.

I'm interested to see what they do to people that are currently appealing decisions. I tried to read through the bill but it everything I found was ambiguous. I expect if I do win, I will get a pittance of a monthly payment.

It's pretty clear that VAC and Gov are decreasing benefits yet again, under the guise of increasing them. Either the bureaucrats all previously worked at the Ministry of Truth, or they had a sh1t ton of actuaries consult on this to reduce risk/liabilities. PFL wasn't designed to increase benefits, it was designed to slow the cash flow...
 
standingdown said:
Considering CAF/VAC are essentially one giant grey area...I definitely feel for you. Hang in there.

I'm interested to see what they do to people that are currently appealing decisions. I tried to read through the bill but it everything I found was ambiguous. I expect if I do win, I will get a pittance of a monthly payment.

It's pretty clear that VAC and Gov are decreasing benefits yet again, under the auspice of increasing them. Either the bureaucrats all previously worked at the Ministry of Truth, or they had a sh1t ton of actuaries consult on this to reduce risk/liabilities. PFL wasn't designed to increase benefits, it was designed to slow the cash flow...

HA, I was an LCIS, want to see Grey, go check out the spec pay debacle,

I agree with the limit cash flow. I do think they could of done great with this, however, they seemed to have limited the funds. Not to be a greedy prick, but My estimates, along with my CM, I will be getting the $592, plus either $500 but most likely $1000 for the APSC, due to the medical limitations and changes to the way its worded, where its based more off of Limitations, as opposed to return to work bla bla.

So that is 1592 a month, which, not going to lie, is good. I can deal with that, that combined does help. Id prefer a fat lump sum So I can become mortgage free, but whatever. I understand them not wanting some 17000 veterans at 100% pulling some $300k in April all at once ( I read 73400 total VAC clients, approx 17000 near or by the 100% mark, but I think that number is high)
(5.1 Billion LMFAO). I mean we do have to pay for Family trips, Photo Ops, media buyouts, bla bla bla


I just dont want to be put into a situation, because of my medical limitations, of putting my family at risk, I am employed where hearing is a must, I am going deaf at 35, It wouldn't be a worry if we were for the most part mortgage free (lump sum ding ding ding), then I could find a less stressful, and a feasible employment for myself where hearing isnt a must. Its not like I have brand new vehicles, or shit like that,
 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-veterans-affairs-skipped-normal-consultations-to-introduce-new/?fbclid=IwAR2mnYnnAvzNpAmH_oJnRVE7aefDdc8AKQj6S46eU1r53TrBevZQSDRl8No


Veterans Affairs skipped normal consultations to introduce new Pensions for Life for disabled vets
Gloria Galloway - 2 Jan 19

Veterans Affairs is being accused of avoiding consultations with veterans after introducing details of its Pensions for Life program.

The new pension plan, which will take effect in April, 2019, will save the government money, at least in the short term, and reduce the compensation awarded to many disabled soldiers. During the first four years of the plan, Ottawa will pay about $1.8-billion less, in total, to disabled vets than it would have under programs enacted during the Harper government. And critics say it has gone to some lengths to prevent veterans from having input. “It’s a systemic attack upon veterans’ rights to be denied the chance to participate in the very democracy that they were willing to die to defend,” says Sean Bruyea, a veterans-rights advocate who is suing Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan for defamation as a result of comments the minister made in response to Mr. Bruyea’s criticism of the plan.

After taking office in 2015, the Liberal government created advisory groups of veterans to offer comment about new policies and laws affecting Canadians who have served in the military. The government says a number of suggestions from the advisory groups were incorporated into Pensions For Life, but it did not ask the groups for feedback before announcing it in the days after Parliament broke for Christmas in 2017. The legislation to enact the program was rolled into an omnibus budget bill in 2018. There was no discussion about it on the floor of the House of Commons, and very little at Commons committees. Although there was an opening for public consultation in the spring of 2018 when the government announced its intention to publish regulations to put Pensions for Life into effect, there was no additional opportunity for comment after the regulations were released in September. At that point, veterans and other Canadians could see the details of what was actually being proposed.

That differs from the way the government normally does things, said Mr. Bruyea, a disabled vet who collects benefits under the Pension Act, the plan that predates the Harper government changes, and will not be affected by the new pension program. For instance, public comment was allowed for 60 days after new regulations were introduced around air passenger protection, the legalization of cannabis, the disposal of hazardous waste, and the law governing electroplating and reverse etching. The New Veterans Charter, which came into effect under the Conservatives in 2006, allowed a comment period after the proposed regulations were made public and before they were approved by cabinet.

When asked why there was no opportunity for public input after the regulations were published to enact the Pensions For Life, the Veterans Affairs department told The Globe and Mail that there is no requirement to publish regulations for consultation before they are approved. “Cabinet may exempt regulatory proposals from pre-publication on a case-by-case basis, and the specific rationale for exempting pre-publication is protected under cabinet confidence,” the department said in an e-mail.

The department also pointed out that Mr. O’Regan has been travelling the country to explain the Pensions For Life to veterans and their families, “to get their feedback, [and to] ensure their voices are heard and their questions answered ...” The new pension plan is designed to replace the compensation plan in the New Veterans Charter that is based largely on a lump-sum payment.

In response to questions provided recently by The Globe, Veterans Affairs Canada rejected the suggestion that the new pensions will result in a cost savings. But the department also did not dispute that it will spend less money over the first four years. Although the new pensions were meant to provide more equal levels of compensation, many individual retired members of the military who apply for benefits on or after April 1 will receive less than they would have if they had applied before that date. And they will receive much less than they would have under the old Pension Act − owing to the fact that the new program has eliminated some benefits and merged the rest into one monthly pension payment.

The Veterans Affairs website highlights the example of a 25-year-old veteran named Lauren D. who is 100-per-cent disabled with amputations above the elbow and above the knee, and who also suffers from Traumatic Stress Disorder. If Lauren lives to the age of 75, Veterans Affairs said in a recent e-mail that she would receive $690,000 in basic pain and suffering compensation through the new Pensions For Life plan, which is well more than the disability award of $360,000 that she would get under the current system.

Mr. Bruyea, on the other hand, says Lauren would get $1,590,000 over the course of her lifetime through the Pensions For Life Plan, but $2,500,328 if she applied for benefits before April 1. That is a difference of $910,328, created principally by the elimination of a career-impact allowance, which is one of the benefits that currently exists but will not under the Pensions for Life plan. And the disparity is even greater between the new Pensions for Life and the old Pension Act, which would have paid her a total of $3,168,966. Veterans have been demanding the reinstatement of lifetime pensions that existed under the Pension Act.

“This is not what the Liberal government promised, it’s not what veterans were expecting,” Mr. Bruyea said, “and we are going to create a whole new generation of marginalized former soldiers.”
 
Rifleman62 said:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-veterans-affairs-skipped-normal-consultations-to-introduce-new/?fbclid=IwAR2mnYnnAvzNpAmH_oJnRVE7aefDdc8AKQj6S46eU1r53TrBevZQSDRl8No


Veterans Affairs skipped normal consultations to introduce new Pensions for Life for disabled vets
Gloria Galloway - 2 Jan 19

Veterans Affairs is being accused of avoiding consultations with veterans after introducing details of its Pensions for Life program.

The new pension plan, which will take effect in April, 2019, will save the government money, at least in the short term, and reduce the compensation awarded to many disabled soldiers. During the first four years of the plan, Ottawa will pay about $1.8-billion less, in total, to disabled vets than it would have under programs enacted during the Harper government. And critics say it has gone to some lengths to prevent veterans from having input. “It’s a systemic attack upon veterans’ rights to be denied the chance to participate in the very democracy that they were willing to die to defend,” says Sean Bruyea, a veterans-rights advocate who is suing Veterans Affairs Minister Seamus O’Regan for defamation as a result of comments the minister made in response to Mr. Bruyea’s criticism of the plan.

After taking office in 2015, the Liberal government created advisory groups of veterans to offer comment about new policies and laws affecting Canadians who have served in the military. The government says a number of suggestions from the advisory groups were incorporated into Pensions For Life, but it did not ask the groups for feedback before announcing it in the days after Parliament broke for Christmas in 2017. The legislation to enact the program was rolled into an omnibus budget bill in 2018. There was no discussion about it on the floor of the House of Commons, and very little at Commons committees. Although there was an opening for public consultation in the spring of 2018 when the government announced its intention to publish regulations to put Pensions for Life into effect, there was no additional opportunity for comment after the regulations were released in September. At that point, veterans and other Canadians could see the details of what was actually being proposed.

That differs from the way the government normally does things, said Mr. Bruyea, a disabled vet who collects benefits under the Pension Act, the plan that predates the Harper government changes, and will not be affected by the new pension program. For instance, public comment was allowed for 60 days after new regulations were introduced around air passenger protection, the legalization of cannabis, the disposal of hazardous waste, and the law governing electroplating and reverse etching. The New Veterans Charter, which came into effect under the Conservatives in 2006, allowed a comment period after the proposed regulations were made public and before they were approved by cabinet.

When asked why there was no opportunity for public input after the regulations were published to enact the Pensions For Life, the Veterans Affairs department told The Globe and Mail that there is no requirement to publish regulations for consultation before they are approved. “Cabinet may exempt regulatory proposals from pre-publication on a case-by-case basis, and the specific rationale for exempting pre-publication is protected under cabinet confidence,” the department said in an e-mail.

The department also pointed out that Mr. O’Regan has been travelling the country to explain the Pensions For Life to veterans and their families, “to get their feedback, [and to] ensure their voices are heard and their questions answered ...” The new pension plan is designed to replace the compensation plan in the New Veterans Charter that is based largely on a lump-sum payment.

In response to questions provided recently by The Globe, Veterans Affairs Canada rejected the suggestion that the new pensions will result in a cost savings. But the department also did not dispute that it will spend less money over the first four years. Although the new pensions were meant to provide more equal levels of compensation, many individual retired members of the military who apply for benefits on or after April 1 will receive less than they would have if they had applied before that date. And they will receive much less than they would have under the old Pension Act − owing to the fact that the new program has eliminated some benefits and merged the rest into one monthly pension payment.

The Veterans Affairs website highlights the example of a 25-year-old veteran named Lauren D. who is 100-per-cent disabled with amputations above the elbow and above the knee, and who also suffers from Traumatic Stress Disorder. If Lauren lives to the age of 75, Veterans Affairs said in a recent e-mail that she would receive $690,000 in basic pain and suffering compensation through the new Pensions For Life plan, which is well more than the disability award of $360,000 that she would get under the current system.

Mr. Bruyea, on the other hand, says Lauren would get $1,590,000 over the course of her lifetime through the Pensions For Life Plan, but $2,500,328 if she applied for benefits before April 1. That is a difference of $910,328, created principally by the elimination of a career-impact allowance, which is one of the benefits that currently exists but will not under the Pensions for Life plan. And the disparity is even greater between the new Pensions for Life and the old Pension Act, which would have paid her a total of $3,168,966. Veterans have been demanding the reinstatement of lifetime pensions that existed under the Pension Act.

“This is not what the Liberal government promised, it’s not what veterans were expecting,” Mr. Bruyea said, “and we are going to create a whole new generation of marginalized former soldiers.”
Did you really expect anything less though? To be honest they do what they want, and in fact have trimmed 1.8 billion over four years?

This was a cost saving move, as we get closer and closer that’s becoming more and more apparent.

I feel awful for those that get less the. A few hundred a month, because that is no benefit and unless you can get the payout option..... useless.

They may qualify for the APSC though if it’s a severe and permanent impairment.
 
I sent another communication through my vac to make sure that a lump sum option will be available in April for those that already took a lump sum and it was confirmed that there will be.
 
Wow it seems to be difficult to get a straight answer from VAC on that one, huh...
 
Well I guess I will phone again, my issues is. I'm at 70% old plan,  45% new plan. They will only pay me for the 30% new plan because that puts me at 100%. So I' say if your going to use the 100% against me  and dont want to pay me the other 15%  than what's your argument for not paying me  at 100%???.
 
upandatom said:
and that a Lump Sum is NOT available for those already paid out to 100%, however, those that are less then 100%, can by all means take a lump sum payment.
IE- Someone pensioned 50%, (using my case scenario and dates, just took away 50% of each disability.) it came to this

So with my timeline cutting the numbers in half, that person will have the option of $297 a month, OR a Lump sum of $167 696 that keeps them under 365000 (what ever it is for that year-342K ish) 

The first point seems real dodgy. Why 100%? So if you were pensioned at 95% you can get the lump sum but not 100%? What about 97%? The whole point of NOT paying the lump sum to those that took the DA is that they already got their money. The exact same logic would apply to every pensioned vet who took the regardless of %. That would be massively penalizing the most seriously injured vets FOR being the most seriously injured. Even the mess VA is in w/r to this, that would be an inexplicably bizarre policy.

But even if that was the case, you'd have to deduct what they've already been paid, don't forget. So the new 50% amount of $182,000 would be your starting point. They'd subtract what they've already been paid FROM that $182,000. So the MAX you'd get would be $57,000, and that's only if you were pensioned in 2007 (the first year of the NVC)
 
RobA said:
The first point seems real dodgy. Why 100%? So if you were pensioned at 95% you can get the lump sum but not 100%? What about 97%? The whole point of NOT paying the lump sum to those that took the DA is that they already got their money. The exact same logic would apply to every pensioned vet who took the regardless of %. That would be massively penalizing the most seriously injured vets FOR being the most seriously injured. Even the mess VA is in w/r to this, that would be an inexplicably bizarre policy.

But even if that was the case, you'd have to deduct what they've already been paid, don't forget. So the new 50% amount of $182,000 would be your starting point. They'd subtract what they've already been paid FROM that $182,000. So the MAX you'd get would be $57,000, and that's only if you were pensioned in 2007 (the first year of the NVC)

Because, if your paid out to 100% of what the maximum is , it states, the maximum lump sum is the Maximum amount the day before this takes effect(not the exact words, but along those lines) Which as of 2018 was 365k, If your day 2007 when it was less. Then you can get a lump sum of up to whatever the split difference is, so if it was 225k, and in 2019 it’s 375k, you can take the 150 and not receive payouts, (rough numbersjust trying to point out that the member is not at the 100% current payout amount)

Which let’s be honest, should be topped up yearly here,
 
Why do they need to make things so cryptic and undeciferable. Everytime I look they changed acronyms for programs, which loses me immediately. Or their examples are incomplete or don't fit our situations. It's gotten to the point that I just sit and wait to see if they give me money. I wouldn't know if it's the right amount or not.

For years I received approx $340/mth for my ears. Reassessment last July. Last week they bumped me to $1220/mth and change. Their explanation was that they had underpaid me. They backdated to the July reassessment. Problem is, my profile has not changed for the last five years. If it's worth $1220 now, it was worth it then.

This is the kind of shit that drives Vets crazy.
 
Ok...So now I am confused..

I was paid out 15% back in 2010....Will I have the option to receive my PLF in a Lumpsum? or do I HAVE to take a monthly payment?
 
Expect monthly only. If there's a change that allows lump sum then all the better. Most of the evidence including what's written on VACs site has only said monthly. There has been nothing nowhere saying a choice except for new claims going forward and probably some misinformed VAC employees.
 
Teager said:
Expect monthly only. If there's a change that allows lump sum then all the better. Most of the evidence including what's written on VACs site has only said monthly. There has been nothing nowhere saying a choice except for new claims going forward and probably some misinformed VAC employees.
I've called and sent a few queries through my vac and every time the answer is that it could be taken as lump sum.This is more than a few misinformed employees

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk

 
MONTHLY only applies to claims filed after april 2019....same as when we had to wait for our "top up"...2019 is a new budget....

That's the way I personally interpret it for "new" files anyway,the older claims are able to request one or the other.I see the doing away with the lump sum as a way to spread out the "pain" if you will and prevent huge yearly costs to VAC...whatever...another crock od S*&T brought to you by the government who was going to save the world...
 
Teager said:
The above has always been my understanding of the benefits. Although not very clear it's also written the same on VACs Q&A page.

The examples on the Q&A page of vets receiving 20% 40% and 100% lump sums and then show what they receive for a monthly pension have been removed. Maybe VAC is making the examples more clear?

It is still there,
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pension-for-life#wellbeing_act_block
 
meni0n said:
I've called and sent a few queries through my vac and every time the answer is that it could be taken as lump sum.This is more than a few misinformed employees

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk

I would agree, as I am trying to sort out my Departmental review for hearing, I asked the member on the phone, she said ALL will have the option for Lump Sums,
I said that's funny, MY CM told me two weeks ago those at 100% wont be eligible and would only receive a monthly addition. (To be fair, my CM has told me she has avoided the PFL training because they dont have a clue whats going on)

But, Saying that, in the next two months we should all be receiving notices of whats happening, according to their timeline.
Unless they use the same company that built the Pheonix system for payouts........

Its going to be interesting in this thread as those letters come in.


 
upandatom said:
It is still there,
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pension-for-life#wellbeing_act_block

The day I posted that it was taken down and brought back the next day.
 
Anyone see the Post on FB,
It says,
"Pension for Life will come into effect soon. If you receive a Career Impact Allowance, you will get a phone call from a Veterans Affairs Canada before 1 April 2019. We’ll discuss how the transition to the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation will work for you and answer any questions you may have. Read more about the new benefit here: http://ow.ly/n5ID30ndS2q"

So we may have more information in the coming months,
 
Back
Top