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

Veterans Affairs Canada - have they lost their way?

3rd Horseman said:
DVA is not a disability pension it is a Gift of Canada for pain and suffering.

I've seen you make this comment a couple times now, and while I agree with your opinion (and the CF Ombudsman's opinion at http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/updates/vet_e.asp) that VAC doesn't give out "disability pensions" in the same sense that SISIP LTD does, the opinion is just that - opinion.  Nothing has been done so far to change the status of VAC disability pensions, so calling them "gifts for pain and suffering" is kind of moot until their status does get changed.
 
3rd Horseman said:
Gift of Canada for pain and suffering.

Are you joking, or do you seriously consider it a 'gift'?  Its supposed to be compensation for the lost ability to earn an equitable income. 
 
Centurian1985 said:
Are you joking, or do you seriously consider it a 'gift'?  Its supposed to be compensation for the lost ability to earn an equitable income. 

In all fairness, even the CF Ombudsman is of the opinion that it's a "gift" as compensation for pain and suffering.  There are lots of disabilities that are pensionable under VAC that wouldn't hinder a person's ability to earn an equitable income.
 
284_226 said:
In all fairness, even the CF Ombudsman is of the opinion that it's a "gift" as compensation for pain and suffering.  There are lots of disabilities that are pensionable under VAC that wouldn't hinder a person's ability to earn an equitable income.

Well, I agree the right sentiment is there, but using the term 'gift' can be taken the wrong way by some groups, especially those of the more rabid anti-military variety. 
 
I just re-read the Ombudsman's take on the issue, and he doesn't mention the word "gift", so maybe that would indeed be an inappropriate word.  He sums it up nicely here:

In light of the above, it is clear – and, indeed, indisputable – that Pension Act disability pensions are not meant to be income replacement. As I indicated above, they must be characterized as amounts paid for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
 
As callous as it sounds, and I did real a bit, the word gift falls in line for what it is

Gift Definition


Possibly a legalese way of removing onus that they are entitled to pay immediately without their form of due process

dileas

tess
 
the 48th regulator said:
As callous as it sounds, and I did real a bit, the word gift falls in line for what it is
Gift Definition
Possibly a legalese way of removing onus that they are entitled to pay immediately without their form of due process

Hmmm.... a good argument, but...

Gift definition:
1. something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance; present. 
Agreed
2. the act of giving. 
Agreed
3. something bestowed or acquired without any particular effort by the recipient or without its being earned.
I'm not so sure about that...Seems like it doesnt get awarded without some level of effort...    
4. a special ability or capacity; natural endowment; talent: the gift of saying the right thing at the right time. 
–verb (used with object)
I wish!
5. to present with as a gift; bestow gifts upon; endow with. 
Agreed
6. to present (someone) with a gift: just the thing to gift the newlyweds. 
maybe agree...

Ah well, I guess 4 out of 6 is close enough for government work.   I withdraw my contention.


BTW - 3 three things that affect your rank, good one!
 
3rd Horseman said:
      Correct me if I'm wrong BA but the link you gave for non eco payments for the injured don't actually pay non economic injuries if you are getting full pay. They just cover the medical .

  In conclusion I think that the old DVA system was just fine less the payments for non combat injury. I think LTD SISP is the problem and it was not overhauled when the DVA charter was, that will prove to be a mistake IMHO.

In response to your query about non-economic loss payments- it is my understanding that they are paid out irregardless of employment status-just like our new VAC lump sum payments.  They are for compensation for how job-related injuries affect a person outside of the workplace.

Those who work in the public sector may want to add something here, if I'm wrong.  I'd also like to know- as VAC has seemingly brought the CF disability awards system more into line with what civilian employees get through Workers Comp- if civilians experience the same level of frustration and bureaucracy with Workers' Comp as we all do with VAC. Having union respresentation may make a difference?  Just wondering.

I'm not challenging you here or anything- I'd just like to know what changes you would like to see with the SISIP LTD.  I know there have been problems with the Accidental Dismemberment payouts - and I'm providing a link to a recent article that I've also posted in the thread-The Straw that Broke his Back- http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=19519&sc=93 - that mentions this very thing.

Is it the claw back policy?

I guess it's all about where you're coming from.  SISIP is the only thing keeping me afloat right now- and I've been extended past the first 2 years on that.  VAC has been little to no help- and what help (medical mostly, not financial) I have received, I've had to fight for.

Could you clarify what changes you would specifically like to see, please? Always good to look at a situation from another point of view- it's so easy to get wrapped up in one's own situation.

Bren

 
Centurian1985 said:
Are you joking, or do you seriously consider it a 'gift'?  Its supposed to be compensation for the lost ability to earn an equitable income. 

  Not joking. The wording comes direct out of the VAC legislation wording. Much like a stipend such as Canada gives to soldiers who won VC or POW in the old days.

  Its supposed to be compensation for the lost ability to earn an equitable income. 

On this one your incorrect that is what the CF medical pension, CPP disability and SISIP LTD are for. DVA is separate and apart that is why it is non taxable.
 
battleaxe said:
Could you clarify what changes you would specifically like to see, please? Always good to look at a situation from another point of view- it's so easy to get wrapped up in one's own situation.
Does that mean I can give you my "King for a Day" response?
 
For your info. The following is the links to the members, criteria for members of the VRAB. Read the bio's of those who adjudicate your appeal. Four of the 25 members have military experience: one as a teenager in the Militia, an ex PPCLI Maj; a ex WO Inf, a LCol Air Force Engr. Plus the VRAB consists of a Chairman and Deputy Chairman (with no military experience), When you see their pay, is it a retainer, or is it prorated depending on the number of days they work? There are possibly five vacancies on the VRAB. Not many have ever walked a day in combat boots. And why should anyone put themselves on the line ?  You do not have to put yourself on the line to be a member of VRAB. You have to be connected, no matter what they say about the selection criteria. But, as a member of VRAB,  you can tell someone who has been on the line he his full of it. No wonder there are problems.

http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/EmploymentOpp/Backgrounder.html

The Appointment Process for Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) Members

Three-stage assessment process
The selection process will include an initial screening, a written examination, and an interview, including reference checks.

Screening criteria
Education: Candidates must have graduated with a degree from a recognized university or have an acceptable combination of education, job-related training and/or experience. Preference may be given to candidates with a medical or legal background.
Experience: Candidates must have experience as a decision maker in or presenting cases before a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal or an acceptable combination of relevant experience in other fields, including disability compensation and veterans’ affairs.

Assessment criteria
Knowledge: Candidates must have knowledge of principles of natural justice in a tribunal setting and knowledge of contemporary veterans’ issues as well as knowledge of the interpretation and application of legislation governing veterans’ benefits.
Skills and Abilities: Excellent analytical skills are required as well as the ability to render decisions in accordance with applicable law. Candidates will need excellent interpersonal and communication skills, and must be able to write clear, accurate and concise decisions on behalf of the Board. Judgement and initiative, as well as organizational skills to produce quality and timely decisions, are essential.

Screening and interview committees

Screening committees
Screening committees will include a retired legal or medical community representative, the Chair or Deputy Chair of the VRAB, and a human resources expert. These committees will assess the application form and curriculum vitae of candidates to determine who should proceed to a written assessment of specific skills and abilities. The written assessment results of each candidate will be reviewed by the same committee to determine whether the candidate should be considered further in the selection process.

Interview Committee
Interview committees will include a retired deputy head, or equivalent, and a retired medical or legal expert who are knowledgeable of medical, legal or veterans’ issues, as well as the Chair of the VRAB and a human resources expert. These committees will interview candidates identified by the screening committee to further assess the skills and abilities of each candidate.

Selection of committee members
Members of both screening committees and interview committees will be selected by the Chair of VRAB in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister will be consulted on any changes to the committees and it is anticipated that the membership will change over time to include representation from various locations in Canada. All screening and interview committee members are required to affirm their impartiality in all aspects of the Board Member selection process, and their names will be posted on the VRAB website.

Appointment process
Once the assessments are complete, the Chair of the VRAB will provide a pool of candidates found qualified by the interview committee to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The Minister of Veterans Affairs will draw candidates from the pool that meet the Chair’s recommendations concerning VRAB operational requirements, gender, diversity, geographic needs and linguistic requirements. The Minister will then recommend candidates for appointment to the VRAB to the Governor in Council.


http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/EmploymentOpp/Selection.htm

VETERANS REVIEW and APPEAL BOARD MEMBER SELECTION CRITERIA

Classification:  GC-Q3 ($91,200 - $107,300)

Position Title:  Member, Veterans Review and Appeal Board

Portfolio: Veterans Affairs

Locations:  Charlottetown, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver

Education:  Graduation with a degree from a recognized university or an acceptable combination of education, job related training and/or experience.
Preference may be given to candidates with a medical or legal background.

Experience: Experience as a decision maker in a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal;
or  Experience in presenting cases before a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal;
or An acceptable combination of relevant experience in other fields including disability compensation and veterans' affairs.

Knowledge: Knowledge of the principles of natural justice in a tribunal setting;  Knowledge of contemporary veterans' issues;
Knowledge of the interpretation and application of legislation governing veterans' benefits, specifically The Pension Act , The Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, and other related statutes.

Skills and Abilities:  Excellent analytical skills are required as well as the ability to render decisions in accordance with applicable law.  To work effectively as part of an adjudicative panel, the candidates will need excellent interpersonal and communication skills, and must be able to write clear, accurate and concise decisions on behalf of the Board.  Also required is the ability to organize their workload to ensure the rendering of quality decisions in a timely manner.  Judgement and initiative are also required.

Language Requirement: Proficiency in both official languages is an asset.

Working Conditions: must be able to relocate to the area of employment or to a location within reasonable commuting distance;  most positions require extensive travel throughout Canada, sometimes for periods of three weeks or more at a time.

http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/EmploymentOpp/MemberJobDesc.htm

VETERANS REVIEW and APPEAL BOARD MEMBER JOB DESCRIPTION

Primary Focus
Adjudicate review and appeal applications made to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board which may provide financial compensation to eligible claimants
Interpret and apply the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and other related statutes.

Specific Accountabilities
Provide an independent review of disability pension and War Veterans Allowance decisions taken by Veterans Affairs Canada by hearing and adjudicating cases. This involves:
• conducting hearings in numerous locations across the country in-person and via video conference;
• deciding cases and ensuring the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, Pension Act, War Veterans Allowance Act, and other related statutes are properly interpreted; and,
• writing clear reasons for decisions within specified time frames.

Context
The hearing process is non-adversarial. Clients are most often represented at hearings by a lawyer.

Reporting Relationship
Members are independent decision-makers.

Dimensions
Decisions rendered by Members have a direct impact on disability pension program expenditures which total $1.2B annually.
Pension recipients receive life long payments (non-taxable), as well as possible treatment benefits.

Challenges, Issues, and Initiatives

The medical issues presented are increasingly complex and are not always understood by experts in the medical field.
Clients appearing before the Board are usually represented by a lawyer.
Board Members may have to render decisions without an optimal amount of evidence.
Need to balance the demand of assisting Veterans and service members while respecting the applicable legislation.


Bio’s of members VRAB (an average of 30 full-time Governor-in-Council appointed Members who represent a diverse experience and background from the public at large)

http://www.vrab-tacra.gc.ca/VRAB-TACRA_Members.htm








 
I agree with you and my position was that I don't support pain and suffering grants ie DVA pension to serving members who are not injured in combat.


That quote is by "The Third Horseman " in Posting  Reply #56 on: March 27, 2007, 10:26:39 AM »
and I really disagree when he says


-why?


Only in combat ?

No sir

- Because how many peace keeping missions have Canadian soldiers been on ?-
and how many Canadian soldiers were injured/maimed /disfigured in places such as Cyprus /Bosnia/Gaza -Egypt
- Airplane crashes/land mines and other secondary injuries suffered as a result of this SDA service?

Your thesis then  is that the Veterans Affairs Canada  does nor cover Peace keepers Mr Horseman??

I disagree
 
gordjenkins said:
... and my position was that I don't support pain and suffering grants ie DVA pension to serving members who are not injured in combat.

Why not?
 
Centurian1985 said:

Good Question.

"Service" in the CF should be the key word.  It is not up to the member where, what, when or how he will be employed, nor is it up to the member how he is injured, maimed or killed in that 'Service'.

The potential for injury or death is always there for members of the CF.  That is the hazards of the job.

As was pointed out earlier, when the Buffalo was shot down over the Sinai and all aboard were killed, does it matter or make any difference whether they were on a "Combat" or a "Peacekeeping" Mission?  The end results are the same.  During the Cold War, just because the 'Balloon didn't go up' doesn't negate the fact that the Troops were on the ground and facing the Threat.  Had there been no TICs in Afghanistan, it could have become the same story as Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sinai, Golan, Germany...........etc.
 
I wonder if this post had anything to do with announcement ;>)
see below

also interesting Question
- where is DND in all this
"looking after veterans" ??????



PM announces veterans' ombudsman, bill of rights
Updated Tue. Apr. 3 2007 1:56 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the introduction of a veterans' bill of rights and ombudsman on Tuesday, days before he flies to France to mark the anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.
"Both of these initiatives follow through on a very important promise we made during the election campaign," Harper said at a press conference in Kitchener, Ont.
"Mainly that, if elected, a Conservative government would ensure that Canadian veterans were accorded the respect and honour they deserve by putting in place mechanisms to ensure better responsiveness to their needs and concerns."
The bill of rights takes effect immediately, the prime minister said.
It will allow the government to respond quickly and fairly to any concerns of veterans.
The ombudsman, who will operate at arm's length from the government, will report annually to the veterans' minister and Parliament.
"My hoping is we will start to notice any systemic problems as a consequence of this in the very near future," Harper said.
The ombudsman will play an important role in raising awareness of the needs and concerns of veterans, Harper said.
"Our veterans have given their very best to Canada, and our government is taking yet another step to ensure Canada does its very best for them,'' the prime minister added.
Harper said that the ombudsman's position is currently being advertised and that he hopes to fill it by this spring.
The announcement raises some interesting questions, CTV's Chief Parliamentary Correspondent Craig Oliver said.
"Is he responsible to the minister of defence, or the minister of veterans' affairs, or to parliament, or to the Prime Minister's Office?" Oliver asked.
 
gordjenkins said:
I agree with you and my position was that I don't support pain and suffering grants ie DVA pension to serving members who are not injured in combat.


That quote is by "The Third Horseman " in Posting  Reply #56 on: March 27, 2007, 10:26:39 AM »
and I really disagree when he says


-why?


Only in combat ?

No sir

- Because how many peace keeping missions have Canadian soldiers been on ?-
and how many Canadian soldiers were injured/maimed /disfigured in places such as Cyprus /Bosnia/Gaza -Egypt
- Airplane crashes/land mines and other secondary injuries suffered as a result of this SDA service?

Your thesis then  is that the Veterans Affairs Canada  does nor cover Peace keepers Mr Horseman??

I disagree
Gorden.
  I define combat as battle, not just isolated to a declared war or not. Thus UN missions that saw battle, which is most, are included in my comments. A Stan is also a UN mission I dont define peacekeeping as non combat unless you are unarmed observer and even then it can get combatish. No one declares war anymore so any fighting is combat. Hope that clears my position.

Edit - I would also further my point (after chatting with a friend whos brother was shot in training) that training accidents should also have these benifits extended.
Also I like the sound of that "Mr Horseman" maybe I should change my name?  :D
edit forgot the ,
 
Joe Sharpe would be a good fit for the new post.

The job description of the Veterans Ombudsman has been posted, as well as the Veterans’ Bill of Rights (which are pretty basic). Note that systemic means universal/total/complete.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=ombudsman/appt#01

Veterans Ombudsman (full-time position)

The Veterans Ombudsman will be charged with the responsibility of responding quickly and fairly to the concerns of Veterans on a wide range of issues. More specifically, the Ombudsman will act as neutral, impartial and objective reviewer of: individual complaints and systemic issues related to programs and services provided or administered by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC); systemic issues related to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) processes; and individual complaints related to the Veterans Bill of Rights. The Ombudsman is also a direct source of information to assist individuals in accessing existing channels of redress within VAC when they have a complaint or concern. The Ombudsman will submit annual and other reports to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and may also report to VAC and VRAB authorities concerning any investigation or other matter that is within the Ombudsman's mandate.

The successful candidate must have a degree from a recognized university in a relevant discipline or a combination of equivalent education, job-related training and experience. A law degree would be an asset. The preferred candidate must have proven experience in managing financial and human resources, preferably at the senior executive level. Experience in the management of either a complaints function, a review function or an investigative function is essential. The selected candidate must have demonstrated experience in developing and fostering productive partnerships, as well as experience dealing with government, preferably with senior officials.

The preferred candidate must have knowledge of the mandate of the Veterans Ombudsman. Extensive knowledge of programs, legislation and policies related to Veterans is required. The favoured candidate must have knowledge of the principles of administrative law and natural justice, as well as a good understanding of trends, developments and issues affecting Veterans, including Veterans' health, family and community issues. The selected candidate must have good knowledge of the operations of government.

The chosen candidate must possess strong leadership and managerial skills and a proven aptitude for appropriate and effective liaison and interaction with stakeholders. The successful candidate must have superior interpersonal skills and will be an individual of integrity, discretion and strong professional ethics. The ability to apply analytical, interpretative and evaluative thinking to situations and the ability to anticipate the short and long-term consequences of his/her strategies are required. In addition, the preferred candidate will have superior communications skills, both written and oral, and the ability to act as spokesperson in dealing with the media, public institutions, governments and other organizations. The selected candidate will not only be objective, impartial and fair, but also flexible and resilient.
Proficiency in both official languages is preferred.

 
The only thing missing from the criteria is:
Must be a Veteran
Must have been WIA

  We shall see what the result is....could be just another , Nice idea poor execution" Without a vet and a wounded vet at that I think the odds are against this being an effective position.
 
I have two pieces of information that "clients" of Veterans Affairs should  know.

The first regards the critical letters of diagnosis that VAC is always asking for.  Michele Mischler a reporter of Global Maritimes reported on the 1800 and 2300 telecasts of 26 March, 2007, that Canadian Forces doctors have been prohibited from writing letters of diagnosis to Veterans Affairs Canada!  The basis for this prohibition is that the letters would be a “conflict of interest”.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reporter's statment but, because it might be accurate, I thought everyone should know.  The day after the telecasts, I telephoned GLobal to ask for a transcript but they refused to provide one saying that there are potential legal implications so, unless a lawyer makes the request on my behalf, I can't have a transcript.  So when you want to submit an appliation to VAC, ask the MO if this reporter was correct and then post the answer here.  If it is correct, get yourself a referral to a civilian specialist; civilians can write those letters.  Also, when you requisition copies of your medical records, make sure you request copies of your CF 2016, Medical Attendance Record.  It contains a wealth of information!

Michele Mischler's article was about the treatment that Captain Andre Daoust is receiving from Veteran Affairs Canada.  He is still serving but expected to be released due to the extent of his injuries.

The second bit of information is about the VAC Ombudsman.  I e-mailed the Prime Minister's Office saying that my rights, as listed on the Veterans' Bill of Rights, have been violated.  Until a VAC Ombudsman is appointed, to whom should I submit my complaint?  Also, who will the Ombudsman report to?  The answers were:  Complaints should be directed to the Minister of VAC; and, The Ombudsman will be reporting to the Minister of VAC.  So I sent another e-mail asking to whom should complaints be sent when the person I'm complaining about is the Minister (I've written to the Minister asking for help but he has brushed aside my complaints)?  My letter has gone unanswered.
 
tired said:
I have two pieces of information that "clients" of Veterans Affairs should  know.

The first regards the critical letters of diagnosis that VAC is always asking for.  Michele Mischler a reporter of Global Maritimes reported on the 1800 and 2300 telecasts of 26 March, 2007, that Canadian Forces doctors have been prohibited from writing letters of diagnosis to Veterans Affairs Canada!

I can tell you firsthand that this information is correct, as I was contacted by the cell at the Stadacona Hospital that deals with such requests.  They informed me that MOs are not to write letters of diagnosis in support of a VAC claim.  After reminding them that the doctor who would be writing the report was not a MO but a specialist under contract (who is allowed to submit billing to VAC), they handled the request from VAC.

The basis for this prohibition is that the letters would be a “conflict of interest”. 

The explanation given to me was that Medical Officers were finding more and more of their time being taken up by writing these letters, and it became too time consuming to support.
 
Back
Top