• 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

Lightguns

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
milnews.ca said:

This is a political hockey puck that everyone is going to make careers and expense accounts out of stick handling the rest of their lives without ever crossing the blue side on either end.  Every one of those so and so's that stood on that stage and announced the NVC should be dragged through the streets and set upon by their victims. 
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
290
Points
1,130
Lightguns said:
Every one of those so and so's that stood on that stage and announced the NVC should be dragged through the streets and set upon by their victims.
Sadly, that'd be a pretty looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong line ...  :(
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,789
Points
890
recceguy said:
What has been said about the return to lifelong pensions (how and when) and what is the status of the 90% top up and how will it be applied.?

90% top up- already done for pure ELB cases. I'm not 100% sure for SISIP cases, but anecdotally a bunch of people have gotten it already. Tehre is some very jusitfied griping that people who are totally and permanently disabled deemed by SISIP still ned to apply for Rehab through VAC to get the remaining 15%. I have not heard of anyone being denied it in these circumstances, but it may hapen and if so will be the next stink bomb to drop on the department. SISIP remains a big issue, and general consensus is it needs in its entirety to die in a fire.

Pension option Nothing confirmed yet. The policy group presented their suggestion, and it's essentially a blended model of the two systems. I will not do it justice, but I'll try to get the gist of it. Picture two columns- Pain and suffering, and economic loss. Pain and suffering, in their vision, would include both the existing lump sum, and would essentially bring back the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance, tax free, with easier access. There would also be an enhanced caregiver benefit probably analogous with the attendance allowance. Critical Injury Benefit would go away. On the economic loss side, ELB would continue to exist, but would be tax free like the old pension act payments. Income offset would be reduced to incentivize return to work. I believe ELB would continue past 65, and RISB would cease to exist.

There's more to it than that, but those are the broad strokes as best as I can recall. One critical element that they explicitly included was that formulas would be structured to ensure that any vet receiving benefits under such a new, blended system would make NO LESS than they would have under the strict pension act system. That would ensure nobody was worse off than they were before and would restore pension act equity. Note that these are recommendations from one of the advisory groups tasked to generate them, this is not a government position. It is intended to be achievable for budget 2017. It is not a simple restoration of a pension as it previously existed, but in terms of providing a stable monthly income for serious disability, the elements as I saw them presented combined to achieve that. Again, I'm not presenting it particularly well here because I don't have access to the slide deck used.

kratz said:
So 60 days to answer medical questionnaire is normal for VAC?  With new medical staff? Of course I'm mad, this is my 3rd kick in over 800 days. The RCL has hurt my efforts more than helped....and I'm an ordinary member!

Sorry man, that's outside my arcs. I do know that VAC is chronically running behind on applications and assessments, and that it will stil be some time before increased staffing allows them to get back to hitting their service standards. I'm not making excuses for them, they're in a sorry state. It's an acknowledged reality that ramping capacity back up will take time.

milnews.ca said:

Parent is basically saying all the same stuff everyone has been saying anyway. I don't thinkhe has much of an audience these days. However he did allude to a good key note speech from Gen Vance in which he heavily emphasized the need to properly address the transition to civilian life. The 'Vance Sends' that we took away from it is he intends to create a commanded unit rather than a bureaucracy in order to deal with transition, and to get it to the point where there is a smooth handoff where the day you take off your uniform, your benefits start. He got asked about simply not authorizing releases until pensions and benefits are set up, the answer that came back as best as I can tell is that it's not viable due to an organizational inability to hold that many people in limbo, occupying PYs. A disappointing answer, but the one he had to give. CAF however IS invested in sorting this one out as aprt and parcel of the 'looking after our people' theme.
 

Wookilar

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
WRT SISIP/ELB, VAC has told me that they are aiming for the payments to be done for end-Oct for those that were already approved for ELB. Caveat: that depends on people sending in the info they have from their pay stubs OR the very plainly worded letter that SISIP and VAC sent out with all the info and numbers on it needed for the calculation in a timely manner. I have to say, My VAC Account is so simple to use, especially for something like this. Scan, upload, confirm, done your part.

I think SISIP needs to go away as well as it just ends up being a barrier to so many VAC programs. I have been deemed "permanently disabled" by SISIP but VAC doesn't have the same criteria and it just ends up confusing so much crap.
 

Teager

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
One of the questions asked on Trudeaus tour. Not much of an answer.

Trudeau faces tough questions as he kicks off cross-country tour

Prime minister faces range of questions at Kingston, Ont., town hall on 1st leg of outreach trip


Another woman seemed to choke up as she criticized the Liberal government's handling of benefits for veterans.

"You promised the injured veterans you would restore the lifetime disability pension," she said. "So when are you going to be restoring these lifelong disability pensions for our injured? And stop pursuing this in court as [you promised]?" she asked.

"As you say, there are still more things to do and we are going to continue to work with veterans groups, continue to work with advocates, continue [to work with] MPs of all stripes," Trudeau responded.

"We're going to continue to work on keeping not just an electoral promise we made to Canadians, but a promise and commitment that every government makes to the parents and the families of young men and women who sign up for our forces."

The woman later stood up and complained the prime minister had not answered her questions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-tour-grassroots-canadians-1.3932162
 

Teager

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Next week's federal budget will re-iterate the Liberal government's campaign promise of returning to injured veterans to a system of lifetime pensions, government sources told CBC News on Friday.

But there will be no dollar figures attached to the assurance in Wednesday's fiscal plan — something the sources say will change later this year.

The political trial balloon, which is also being reported by Radio-Canada, came on the same day the Veteran Affairs department issued a statement reminding the public, and the politically-charged veterans community in particular, that lump-sum injury payments to wounded ex-soldiers will increase on April 1.

Ottawa revives Harper-era legal arguments to block pensions for injured vets
In addition, those who've already received the contentious disability awards going back to 2006 will be eligible for extra cash.

It is the latest in a flurry of mostly behind-the-scene activity involving the sensitive veterans file.

The sources said the decision to reference the campaign promise in the budget, without providing dollar figures, was meant to ease growing unrest in the veterans community.

Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr was before a House of Commons committee last week, where he was decidedly circumspect about whether the government would fulfil the life-time pension commitment in next week's budget.

More at link.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vets-lifetime-pensions-1.4030353
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
520
Points
960
If it's not costed, it doesn't exist, and is easy to ignore. I won't hold my breath. Remember,  this is the same gang that engineered the NYC in the first place.
 

Teager

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
ModlrMike said:
If it's not costed, it doesn't exist, and is easy to ignore. I won't hold my breath. Remember,  this is the same gang that engineered the NYC in the first place.

True but they have now committed to a timeline. Although no old system pension is coming back so who knows what this will look like when they draw it up.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,789
Points
890
Not surprised. The message has been fired at them loud and clear from the loud/obnoxious parts of the veterans community that there had better be something in this budget, or they will face a political revolt from a group that made a lot of loud and painful noise against the last government. Bear in mind this is also still against the backdrop of the Equitas lawsuit on almost exactly this issue, and which is presently awaiting a court decision that should allow it to go to trial.

It won't be a reversal to the Pension Act system. That was floated in December 2015 at the VAC stakeholders conference and was almost universally shot down. NVC has a lot of good components; really ONLY the lump sum is hated- the rest offers a lot. We will in all likelihood be seeing a hybrid system that will preserve the bulk of the current benefits, and will enhance monthly payments in order to achieve equity with the Pension Act payments. Some of the usual suspects will piss and moan about 'economic' benefits versus those for 'sacrifice', but thwere it really matters - bottom line dollars in pockets - I believe the government recognizes that post-2006 vets need to:
- Not be disadvantaged in comparison to the Pension Act;
- Have every opportunity to go through vocational rehab and education so they can have a meaningful future;
- Be compensated for the economic impact of restricted career growth (E.g., blown up as a Pte/Cpl instead of retiring as a WO/MWO /Maj)
- See appropriate comepsnation along similar lines for family members who are stuck being primary caregivers instead of pursuing their own careers.

I think we're going to see another layer of band aid for this one. NVC version 2.4, when what we need is a version 3.0 clean rewrite. Right now the total suite of possible benefits include but aren't limited to: Disability award, Earnings Loss Benefit, Permanent Incapacitation Allowance, Critical Injury Benefit, SISIP LTD, Retirement Income Security Benefit, Reserve Force Compensation, Employment Insurance disability benefits, Canada Pension Plan - Disability; Disability Tax Credit; Canadian Forces Pension payments...

It's baffling and dizzying. And a lot of these offset against each other, reduce each others' amounts, so on and so forth. It's brutal. Hopefully they can get an interim fix in place here, and then embark on a longer term 5 to 10 year analysis across all government benefits and services with an eye towards a comprehensive rewrite. There are differing definitions for ans assessments of 'disability' for things like VAC awards, CPP-Disability payments, and the disability tax credit. And we haven't even touched provincial level yet, which in some cases will add another layer. It's a goddamned mess.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
520
Points
960
The short version is that in an attempt to (successfuly) trap the Conservatives, the Liberals screwed vets in the balance. I won't go so far as to claim this was on purpose, more likely the law of unintended consequences at work. None the less, they have an obligation to undo the damage. As I've said elsewhere,  standing on the mound of dirt beside the hole you dug doesn't qualify as occupying the moral high ground.
 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
Brihard said:
Not surprised. The message has been fired at them loud and clear from the loud/obnoxious parts of the veterans community that there had better be something in this budget, or they will face a political revolt from a group that made a lot of loud and painful noise against the last government. Bear in mind this is also still against the backdrop of the Equitas lawsuit on almost exactly this issue, and which is presently awaiting a court decision that should allow it to go to trial.

It won't be a reversal to the Pension Act system. That was floated in December 2015 at the VAC stakeholders conference and was almost universally shot down. NVC has a lot of good components; really ONLY the lump sum is hated- the rest offers a lot. We will in all likelihood be seeing a hybrid system that will preserve the bulk of the current benefits, and will enhance monthly payments in order to achieve equity with the Pension Act payments. Some of the usual suspects will piss and moan about 'economic' benefits versus those for 'sacrifice', but thwere it really matters - bottom line dollars in pockets - I believe the government recognizes that post-2006 vets need to:
- Not be disadvantaged in comparison to the Pension Act;
- Have every opportunity to go through vocational rehab and education so they can have a meaningful future;
- Be compensated for the economic impact of restricted career growth (E.g., blown up as a Pte/Cpl instead of retiring as a WO/MWO /Maj)
- See appropriate comepsnation along similar lines for family members who are stuck being primary caregivers instead of pursuing their own careers.

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed to read this comment.  Those "loud/obnoxious" parts of the veterans community aren't advocating for a return to the Pension Act.  They're advocating for a return to the Pension Act Disability Pension to replace the woefully inequitable Disability Award.  I have not heard of anyone wanting the whole NVC tossed and the Pension Act suite of benefits to be reinstated.  Even the "loud/obnoxious" veterans acknowledge that there are some positives in the NVC that could be even better.

When you say that a return to the Disability Pension was almost universally shot down by the stakeholders in December 2015, it's important to put that into context.  The VAC Policy Advisory Group of stakeholders is comprised of:
  • Michael Blais, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
  • Major (Retired) Mark Campbell
  • Brian Forbes, National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada
  • Michel Houle, Veterans UN-NATO Canada
  • Master Warrant Officer (Retired) William MacDonald
  • Major-General John Milne
  • Luc O’Bomsawin, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones
  • Brigadier-General (Retired) Joe Sharpe
  • Commodore (Retired) Andrea Siew
  • Brad White, Royal Canadian Legion

Out of that group, only one member remains steadfast that the restoration of the Disability Pension is what the government promised during the election, and he remains committed to holding them to that promise.  Despite this lone voice, the Group made some recommendations that completely dodged the issue of the Disability Pension, and dealt with issues that primarily concerned the most disabled veterans.  The group also recommended that no veteran should be any worse off under the NVC than they would have been under the Pension Act - something that is quite impossible to achieve given the delta between the Disability Award and the Disability Pension - but doesn't address exactly how to achieve the state of a NVC veteran (any/all of them) being no worse off than under the Pension Act. I wish I could be more specific about what the Group's recommendations were, but it appears that the Record of Discussion for that meeting is no longer present on the VAC website, so I'm going from memory.

To date, I haven't seen anything from Policy Advisory Group explaining why a return to a Disability Pension was shot down so quickly.  I'm not a strong numbers guy, but my back-of-a-cigarette-pack calculations don't see a return to a Disability Pension as being an undue burden on the government coffers, given that the liability is spread out over decades rather than in one given year for a Disability Award.  Dealing with members who have already received a Disability Award should also be a relatively simple exercise in accounting to switch them back to a pension system.  I have no idea why the Group insists on blurring the lines between compensation for non-economic losses (pain & suffering) and income replacement compensation.  Treat each as a separate benefit, and stop trying to mix them together.  That's what the legal system does.

To me (and to a lot of other veterans, from what I see), the Policy Advisory Group sold us out.  For what, or why, I'm not quite sure - considering that the Liberal election promise focused on a return to disability pensions - and there's only ever been one disability pension to return to.  The Policy Advisory Group only had to recommend that the government keep its promise - it didn't even involve having to bargain for something that hadn't already been promised by the government.

edited to add "almost"
 

Rifleman62

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
29
Points
530
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1465981-canadian-veterans-advocacy-blais-removed-from-policy-group

Canadian Veterans Advocacy: Blais removed from policy group

ANDREA GUNN OTTAWA BUREAU - May 5, 2017

An outspoken disabled veteran is fuming after what he claims was his unfair removal from a committee that provides guidance to government on policy issues.

Michael Blais, president and founding member of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, was informed by Veterans Affairs deputy minister General Walt Natynczyk on Monday he was being sacked from the Veterans Affairs ministerial policy advisory group formed by the Liberal government in 2016 for Facebook posts he made months prior.

During a stakeholders meeting in Ottawa in June and August, Blais, who served as an infantryman for 17 years before a major back injury forced him out of service, said he made several posts on Facebook group he runs for veterans about what happened during the meetings, specifically surrounding discussion on reestablishing lifelong pensions.

In 2006, the New Veterans Charter replaced lifelong pensions for injured and disabled veterans with lump sum payments. During the 2015 election the Liberal government promised to bring back that option for veterans but have, to date, failed to act on this promise.

The 2017 budget reiterates the promise, saying the government will provide an option for injured veterans to receive their disability award though a monthly payment for life, rather than a one-time payment of $360,000, but many argue this still does not bring veterans who retired after 2006 in line with benefits covered by the old pension act.

“Discussions got pretty intense. It was clear I was alone and when they came through with a policy on consensus that didn’t reflect what we had been looking for, which is the equality in recognition of national sacrifice, I said that on Facebook,” Blais told the Chronicle Herald. “Veterans should be aware that other groups that the government has chosen to serve are not reflecting what they want.”

The Facebook post that Blais said got him removed from the committee vaguely references the overall discussion, but doesn’t specifically refer to comments made by any members of the committee.

“We discussed the lump sum award today, once again, there was consensus that the award was sufficient <...> We are the only dissenting position,” it reads in part. “As the ONLY stakeholder at the table, then and now, that fought for equality on this issue, I can tell you there will never be consensus support at the Policy Advisory Group, they do not not support the equality principles the CVA and/or, I suspect, want to use this opportunity to create THEIR version of the life time pension, not one that was promised, not one that we have fought so hard for these past five years without wavering.”

Blais said he was to told Monday that other members of the committee, which include both active and retired military members, as well as representatives of groups like the National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada, Veterans UN-NATO Canada, Aboriginal Veterans Autochtones and the Royal Canadian Legion, felt uncomfortable speaking while he was being so public about the discussions. Blais was not invited to the most recent meeting, which took place on Wednesday, two days after he found out he was being removed.

“I believe every policy advisory group should be full transparency and that every veteran we represent should be fully aware of what’s transpiring at these levels,” he said.

A formal letter received by Blais Friday, signed by the deputy minister, reiterated concerns that other committee members were upset by his Facebook activity and confirms his termination, citing the terms of reference for the committee which state members must respect the “trust and confidentiality” of deliberations and refrain from sharing “privileged/protected information or information of a personal nature.”

“I’m very upset because I never signed any confidentiality regulations nor did we ever speak about any confidentiality regulations,” Blais said “Had there been a confidentiality regulation that would have puzzled me and I would have declined.”

Blais said he feels he was targeted not only for his attempt at transparency, but for being an outspoken advocate and often dissenting from the opinions of others in the group.

A spokesperson for the Department of Veterans Affairs would not comment on specific exchanges between members, but confirmed that the department was formally asked by other members of the ministerial policy advisory group to remove Blais after he had repeatedly violated the terms of reference for the group by posting the contents of their meetings online.

“We value the contribution of all our advisory board members and want to ensure that they are able to engage on these pertinent topics in a safe and confidential environment,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
 

ueo

Jr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
130
One wonders just how much the many and varied advocate groups are in support of actual vets? It seems as tho, IMHO, that they talk the talk but lack walking ability or desire. Any others sense this?
 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
As someone who has been heavily involved in Canadian Veterans Advocacy (CVA) activities for several years, I'm personally getting a little tired of the lies and innuendo being spread about the organization.

I have personally invested hundreds of hours in direct assistance to veterans who have needed assistance from VAC.  This includes initial applications for disability benefits, encouraging veterans to pursue Departmental Reviews and VRAB appeals through Bureau of Pensions Advocates, and in general providing information about how to deal with VAC and other agencies that provide support that veterans need.  I know many other members of CVA who provide the same support.

I have personally seen the post that Michael Blais made that raised the ire of the other members of the VAC Policy Advisory Group.  The post was made directly to CVA membership, and was not public.  That said, there is absolutely nothing in the post that even remotely violates the confidentiality of "deliberations".  Nobody was mentioned by name.  The details that were revealed such as the fact that the Lump Sum Award (LSA) was discussed, and that the consensus (except Mike Blais) was that the LSA was deemed sufficient should not be privileged information; in fact, the veteran's community at large OUGHT to know what their stakeholder representatives are taking to the table during these discussions.  If the stakeholders were upset that it was revealed that their organization's position was against an increase to the LSA, or a return to a lifetime Disability Pension system, then perhaps they ought to re-evaluate whether they are truly representing the wishes of the members of their organizations.  The terms of reference for the Policy Advisory Group states:

The work of the Policy Advisory Group will be conducted in a manner that fosters openness, communication, fairness and respect.

If members cannot speak publicly about the positions other organizations are taking for or against various measures, then where is the openness?  The Records of Discussion for the Policy Advisory Group are a joke.  There is little to no detail about any discussion concerning the appropriateness of the amount of the Disability Award, or about any discussion concerning a return to the Disability Pension - only to a pension "option", whatever the hell that is.

Fact of the matter is, Mike Blais has, from the outset, demanded openness and transparency from the Policy Advisory Group.  The other members clearly want to operate in a cloud of secrecy, which raises a huge red flag about exactly what these other veterans group's agendas are.  If the other members of the PAG get their knickers in a bunch over the fact that Mike Blais commented in his post that he was fairly sure someone laughed when he proposed an increase in the LSA to $500K, then Mike Blais isn't the problem - the problem is with the individual who clearly shouldn't have the privilege of speaking on behalf of veterans, and can't conduct him or herself accordingly on discussions of a matter very important to wounded and injured veterans.  Mike Blais has always been completely up-front and open about what position he's taking to the table - the other organizations represented at the PAG cannot say the same.

My personal opinion?  The other members of the PAG complained using a hopelessly weak argument concerning Blais' openness with CVA members to oust a threat to their secretive ways of doing business.  If your veteran's organization can't come to the table with full disclosure about what their agenda is, then you don't belong at the table.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
582
Points
1,060
Mike Blais picked a political side by jumping on the ABC Vets platform for the last election. He didn't get his way with the Liberals, and is now salty about it. Zero levels of sympathy. A real veteran's advocate would have stayed apolitical, and hit all 3 parties on their record without favouring one or another.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
154
Points
430
Occam said:
As someone who has been heavily involved in Canadian Veterans Advocacy (CVA) activities for several years, I'm personally getting a little tired of the lies and innuendo being spread about the organization.

I have personally invested hundreds of hours in direct assistance to veterans who have needed assistance from VAC.  This includes initial applications for disability benefits, encouraging veterans to pursue Departmental Reviews and VRAB appeals through Bureau of Pensions Advocates, and in general providing information about how to deal with VAC and other agencies that provide support that veterans need.  I know many other members of CVA who provide the same support.

I have personally seen the post that Michael Blais made that raised the ire of the other members of the VAC Policy Advisory Group.  The post was made directly to CVA membership, and was not public.  That said, there is absolutely nothing in the post that even remotely violates the confidentiality of "deliberations".  Nobody was mentioned by name.  The details that were revealed such as the fact that the Lump Sum Award (LSA) was discussed, and that the consensus (except Mike Blais) was that the LSA was deemed sufficient should not be privileged information; in fact, the veteran's community at large OUGHT to know what their stakeholder representatives are taking to the table during these discussions.  If the stakeholders were upset that it was revealed that their organization's position was against an increase to the LSA, or a return to a lifetime Disability Pension system, then perhaps they ought to re-evaluate whether they are truly representing the wishes of the members of their organizations.  The terms of reference for the Policy Advisory Group states:

If members cannot speak publicly about the positions other organizations are taking for or against various measures, then where is the openness?  The Records of Discussion for the Policy Advisory Group are a joke.  There is little to no detail about any discussion concerning the appropriateness of the amount of the Disability Award, or about any discussion concerning a return to the Disability Pension - only to a pension "option", whatever the hell that is.

Fact of the matter is, Mike Blais has, from the outset, demanded openness and transparency from the Policy Advisory Group.  The other members clearly want to operate in a cloud of secrecy, which raises a huge red flag about exactly what these other veterans group's agendas are.  If the other members of the PAG get their knickers in a bunch over the fact that Mike Blais commented in his post that he was fairly sure someone laughed when he proposed an increase in the LSA to $500K, then Mike Blais isn't the problem - the problem is with the individual who clearly shouldn't have the privilege of speaking on behalf of veterans, and can't conduct him or herself accordingly on discussions of a matter very important to wounded and injured veterans.  Mike Blais has always been completely up-front and open about what position he's taking to the table - the other organizations represented at the PAG cannot say the same.

My personal opinion?  The other members of the PAG complained using a hopelessly weak argument concerning Blais' openness with CVA members to oust a threat to their secretive ways of doing business.  If your veteran's organization can't come to the table with full disclosure about what their agenda is, then you don't belong at the table.
I can't say this loud enough, the royal Canadian legion does not speak for the majority of veterans and hasn't for years.  There is literally 1 thing that all veterans agree on and that is a return to a true pension option is the right thing to do. A 25 year old with a full sum payout would receive 750 dollars a month to live on  if he took it until he turned 65. That is not taking care of veterans for life. I don't know Mike Blais, but he is 100% in the right on this issue. If any of these other so called veterans advocacy groups don't understand this, they don't speak for veterans.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

Occam

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2
Points
430
PuckChaser said:
Mike Blais picked a political side by jumping on the ABC Vets platform for the last election. He didn't get his way with the Liberals, and is now salty about it. Zero levels of sympathy. A real veteran's advocate would have stayed apolitical, and hit all 3 parties on their record without favouring one or another.

Remember those lies and innuendoes I was talking about?  We got one right here.

Mike Blais didn't jump on any platform.  How do I know this?  I'm an admin on their group, and I can personally tell you that myself and the other admins were instructed to delete any political posts or comments during the election period - and we did so.  Tom Beaver (ABC) was told in no uncertain terms not to post anything even remotely related to ABC in the CVA group.  And he didn't.

Mike Blais criticized the governing party - the Conservatives - from inception until election day 2015.  When the Liberals showed signs of reneging on their election promises, he criticized them too.  There was no favoritism shown to any political stripe.

And to speak to the lengths that his detractors will go to smear him - there's a photo circulating of Mike shaking hands and leaning into PM Trudeau to speak into his ear.  Without context, it looks like a hug.  The context that belongs with it is that Mike was leaning in to remind him - for a second time face-to-face - of his promise to restore the Lifetime Disability pension.  Blais posted the photo the day it happened while quoting his words to the PM, and his detractors spread it without the context.  That's pretty shady behaviour from your so-called brothers in arms.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
217
Points
710
Tcm621 said:
I can't say this loud enough, the royal Canadian legion does not speak for the majority of veterans and hasn't for years.  There is literally 1 thing that all veterans agree on and that is a return to a true pension option is the right thing to do. A 25 year old with a full sum payout would receive 750 dollars a month to live on  if he took it until he turned 65. That is not taking care of veterans for life. I don't know Mike Blais, but he is 100% in the right on this issue. If any of these other so called veterans advocacy groups don't understand this, they don't speak for veterans.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Perhaps it's time that serving and ex serving members signed a petition to end the use of the RCL as a Veterans Advocate and have their government status removed? After all, they have lost their way and became a civilian club with pseudo uniform and military airs, Their focus seems to be huge gatherings of civie executive at members expense, protecting their useless poppy copyright and jet setting the Dominion Executive (of civies) around the world on junkets, along with their wives, etc. They didn't support us on life long pensions prior or after the NVC. They flip flop to whatever is more popular with the government. It's all about civies and money to them. Our service is only an excuse for them to exist. Time to remove their title.
 
Top