- Reaction score
- 1,003
- Points
- 1,160
I love it when an Adjudication clerk, using a Merck Medical Reference book, overturns what a licensed medical professional reports.
Veterans Review and Appeal Bd: pressure to reject claims, spying, junkets (MERGED)
- Thread starter bison33
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
dogger1936 said:
How do we do that? We don't count. The organization that was supposed to advocate for us, the RCL, has become nothing but a place for people with little to no connection to us to play crib and darts, and hold Friday meat draws. Individual veterans' "cries in the wild" will never be heard as far away as Ottawa.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Kat Stevens said:
I haven't seen vet's handcuffing themselves onto the VAC offices doors yet. These advocacy groups out there have not been working. A few loud people outside Parliament one or two days a year are easy to ignore. If you want to get attention to a cause think like media. A few vets with signs around their neck " I don't get a pension" "I went to Afghanistan and all I got was this stupid limp" etc reach headlines and 6 O'clock news.
Believe it or not the majority of Canadian folks support the veterans. However they are tricked into believing there is excellent support for our injured.
And that's just one option. Research, ensure your well spoken, and protest.
- Reaction score
- 2,532
- Points
- 1,260
.... to the earlier stories re: pressure to not approve - here's a link to a written response released this week to a question in the House of Commons (via Google Documents) showing, among other things, a breakdown of number of times individual members of the Board voted for and against an appeal, and totals (2006-2011) of favourable & unfavourable review and appeal decisions.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Statistically speaking, if all things had stayed the same, then why the change in ratio in FY's 10-11 and 11-12?
For all previous years, Favourable vs. Un sat anywhere from 2:1 to 3:1 (inexact, but close).
To paraphrase the famous misquote from Nixon: Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Wook
For all previous years, Favourable vs. Un sat anywhere from 2:1 to 3:1 (inexact, but close).
To paraphrase the famous misquote from Nixon: Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Wook
- Reaction score
- 1,003
- Points
- 1,160
Wook, to clarify
It is not known who said it, but it was not Nixon.The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death.
It is not known who said it, but it was not Nixon.The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Before getting my lump sum payout recently Me and my wife sat down and went through their assessment form found online.
I had a percentage that was 3% lower than DVA decided.
While I disagree that I am only X% disabled and fall under the NVC which I despise; I have found their decision fair based on the current failed system that is set up (which the board can't change of course).
I'm unhappy with VAC and our government's treatment of soldiers but I am pleased with what I see as a fair decision based on the information provided to them.
I had a percentage that was 3% lower than DVA decided.
While I disagree that I am only X% disabled and fall under the NVC which I despise; I have found their decision fair based on the current failed system that is set up (which the board can't change of course).
I'm unhappy with VAC and our government's treatment of soldiers but I am pleased with what I see as a fair decision based on the information provided to them.
- Reaction score
- 1,003
- Points
- 1,160
I would have thought someone would have posted this yesterday.
I wrote to this guy ( 13 Aug 09) after he was appointed, requesting that he look at my case. This was before I found out about the Application for Reconsideration. In the VAC "Salute" article on his appointment Larlee stated:
The reply I got, remarkably dated 27 Aug 09, Larlee stated:
Step up to the pig trough John Larlee. Oh sorry, you are already there!
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120515/veterans-affairs-lecture-junkets-120515/
Veterans demand explanation for U.K. junkets
The Canadian Press - Tuesday May. 15, 2012
OTTAWA — Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney has ordered a ban on international travel for members of an arm's-length agency that reviews the claims of veterans.
The order late Tuesday follows growing controversy over expense claims from John Larlee, chairman of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board since 2009.
The Canadian Press reported this week that Larlee took two taxpayer-funded trips to attend lectures in Britain, where his wife was also a participant.
A group representing Canada's veterans, the Canadian Veterans Advocacy, says the trips are suspect and wants Larlee called to account before a House of Commons committee.
New Democrats went further on Tuesday and demanded he be fired.
The minister turned aside those demands, saying the board is an arm's-length agency that is accountable for its own actions.
"We will stand by the tribunal and expect all board members to be responsible and show respect for taxpayer dollars at all times," he told the Commons.
"I am confident this board will keep on providing good services for our veterans."
Canada veteran's ombudsman tore a strip off the agency last week, saying it failed more often than not to give former soldiers the benefit of the doubt as they appealed benefits claims and didn't give reasons for denying claims.
NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer reminded Blaney that he signed off for the chairman's last trip.
A spokeswoman for the minister, Codi Taylor, confirmed the travel ban Tuesday, but could not say whether any other action was pending.
Larlee attended the Cambridge Lecture series in 2007 at his own expense. But after he was appointed chairman, he billed the federal government for his visits in 2009 and 2011, at a total cost of $7,285.97.
"That kind of money would help a lot of disabled veterans," Stoffer said. "How does this minister allow that kind of abuse?"
Department sources say Blaney was unaware that Larlee's wife was attending the Cambridge lecture series when he approved the travel request.
The series, attended by the elite of Canadian and British political and legal communities, focuses on high-level international policy, with topics such as Afghanistan and the impact of the market collapse. Larlee's wife, Justice Margaret Larlee of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, took part in the 2007, 2009 and 2011 events.
The chairman refused an interview request, but a spokeswoman for the board said the trips received the necessary approvals and were paid for in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
Danielle Gauthier said the conferences helped Larlee to guide the board through tribunal administration and fell within the category of professional development. Board records show Larlee attended five other training conferences in Canada -- at a total cost of $6,757.67 -- since he was appointed in 2009.
Under questioning in the Commons, Blaney said he expects the board to "rigorously apply its standards and it spend taxpayers' money carefully."
Veterans groups were dismayed.
"This is very disappointing on more than one level," said Mike Blais, of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.
"On one hand, Veterans Affairs Canada is sustaining severe cuts resulting in office closures and the dismissal of hundreds of employees, many who are front-line staff, yet on the other, we have the (review board), excluded from the budgetary cuts, squandering thousands of dollars (and) sending Mr. Larlee abroad to lectures."
In light of the conference agendas, he said the trips "surely cannot be justified."
The chairman of the review and appeal board should be fired if he can't provide a suitable explanation for attending the lectures at stately Cambridge University, north of London, Blais said.
The Conservative government promised to either reform or abolish the board and it's time to do one or the other, he added.
That pledge was made during the 2005 election campaign and the Stoffer reminded the government about it only to have the minister describe the notion an "irresponsible NDP suggestion."
I wrote to this guy ( 13 Aug 09) after he was appointed, requesting that he look at my case. This was before I found out about the Application for Reconsideration. In the VAC "Salute" article on his appointment Larlee stated:
The reply I got, remarkably dated 27 Aug 09, Larlee stated:
Step up to the pig trough John Larlee. Oh sorry, you are already there!
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120515/veterans-affairs-lecture-junkets-120515/
Veterans demand explanation for U.K. junkets
The Canadian Press - Tuesday May. 15, 2012
OTTAWA — Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney has ordered a ban on international travel for members of an arm's-length agency that reviews the claims of veterans.
The order late Tuesday follows growing controversy over expense claims from John Larlee, chairman of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board since 2009.
The Canadian Press reported this week that Larlee took two taxpayer-funded trips to attend lectures in Britain, where his wife was also a participant.
A group representing Canada's veterans, the Canadian Veterans Advocacy, says the trips are suspect and wants Larlee called to account before a House of Commons committee.
New Democrats went further on Tuesday and demanded he be fired.
The minister turned aside those demands, saying the board is an arm's-length agency that is accountable for its own actions.
"We will stand by the tribunal and expect all board members to be responsible and show respect for taxpayer dollars at all times," he told the Commons.
"I am confident this board will keep on providing good services for our veterans."
Canada veteran's ombudsman tore a strip off the agency last week, saying it failed more often than not to give former soldiers the benefit of the doubt as they appealed benefits claims and didn't give reasons for denying claims.
NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer reminded Blaney that he signed off for the chairman's last trip.
A spokeswoman for the minister, Codi Taylor, confirmed the travel ban Tuesday, but could not say whether any other action was pending.
Larlee attended the Cambridge Lecture series in 2007 at his own expense. But after he was appointed chairman, he billed the federal government for his visits in 2009 and 2011, at a total cost of $7,285.97.
"That kind of money would help a lot of disabled veterans," Stoffer said. "How does this minister allow that kind of abuse?"
Department sources say Blaney was unaware that Larlee's wife was attending the Cambridge lecture series when he approved the travel request.
The series, attended by the elite of Canadian and British political and legal communities, focuses on high-level international policy, with topics such as Afghanistan and the impact of the market collapse. Larlee's wife, Justice Margaret Larlee of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, took part in the 2007, 2009 and 2011 events.
The chairman refused an interview request, but a spokeswoman for the board said the trips received the necessary approvals and were paid for in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
Danielle Gauthier said the conferences helped Larlee to guide the board through tribunal administration and fell within the category of professional development. Board records show Larlee attended five other training conferences in Canada -- at a total cost of $6,757.67 -- since he was appointed in 2009.
Under questioning in the Commons, Blaney said he expects the board to "rigorously apply its standards and it spend taxpayers' money carefully."
Veterans groups were dismayed.
"This is very disappointing on more than one level," said Mike Blais, of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.
"On one hand, Veterans Affairs Canada is sustaining severe cuts resulting in office closures and the dismissal of hundreds of employees, many who are front-line staff, yet on the other, we have the (review board), excluded from the budgetary cuts, squandering thousands of dollars (and) sending Mr. Larlee abroad to lectures."
In light of the conference agendas, he said the trips "surely cannot be justified."
The chairman of the review and appeal board should be fired if he can't provide a suitable explanation for attending the lectures at stately Cambridge University, north of London, Blais said.
The Conservative government promised to either reform or abolish the board and it's time to do one or the other, he added.
That pledge was made during the 2005 election campaign and the Stoffer reminded the government about it only to have the minister describe the notion an "irresponsible NDP suggestion."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Thank you Mr. Blaise and Canadian Veterans Advocacy. the veterans true voice in all this.
This government (much like the last) does not care about vet's. They will put vimy on a 20 dollar bill and call that helping vets. While young injured soldiers don't even get a pension.
I thought Harper was going to fix the mess that all parties agreed upon (and the legion). Guess I was 100% wrong.
This government (much like the last) does not care about vet's. They will put vimy on a 20 dollar bill and call that helping vets. While young injured soldiers don't even get a pension.
I thought Harper was going to fix the mess that all parties agreed upon (and the legion). Guess I was 100% wrong.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,450
- Points
- 1,140
Do these people not learn from the mistakes of others? It makes me wonder if you have to be slightly "slow" to get a high ranking position in government.
MND and the CDS were very publicly spanked for using aircraft that are meant to be used. And this bureaucrat should be as well.
:2c:
MND and the CDS were very publicly spanked for using aircraft that are meant to be used. And this bureaucrat should be as well.
:2c:
- Reaction score
- 2,532
- Points
- 1,260
A couple of things to add:
1)
2) A bit more of the rest of the picture from a story earlier this week:
1)
FTFYJim Seggie said:
2) A bit more of the rest of the picture from a story earlier this week:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
14043.64 for eating and travelling about.
That's about what you get from veterans affairs for losing a hand!!
Where's our bill or rights you were talking about Harper? Can we please have a pension back?
That's about what you get from veterans affairs for losing a hand!!
Where's our bill or rights you were talking about Harper? Can we please have a pension back?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Only a couple hundred off of 5%, their favorite number for injuries it seems.
That's what I got for destroying my ankle and walking with a swagger for the rest of my life (and wearing out my left boot faster lol).
Curious thing, just tried to get new boots through the system. Won't go for it, the Mk IV's have an impact absorbing sole so that's all I need according to the Dr.
VAC won't cover new boots, or even send me to see their Dr for an exam, because I am still serving, even though I think I have a pretty solid argument that fancy boots are a requirement for my job. Their system will not even allow them to enter a claim with my name on it because I am still serving.
$14K would sure buy a lot of boots.
That's what I got for destroying my ankle and walking with a swagger for the rest of my life (and wearing out my left boot faster lol).
Curious thing, just tried to get new boots through the system. Won't go for it, the Mk IV's have an impact absorbing sole so that's all I need according to the Dr.
VAC won't cover new boots, or even send me to see their Dr for an exam, because I am still serving, even though I think I have a pretty solid argument that fancy boots are a requirement for my job. Their system will not even allow them to enter a claim with my name on it because I am still serving.
$14K would sure buy a lot of boots.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,450
- Points
- 1,140
dogger1936 said:
Or tinnitus.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
To play devils advocate I blew more than that in a single TD trip. (not usually an advocate for the civvy side of the house) Why is it I wonder we only bitch when a civvy gets a beneift. Yes veterans affairs screwed us all with the lump sum vice pension routine (although fiscally a great idea) because someone looked into their crystal ball and said holy christ theres a real war out there. (not justification in my mind) But really 14 grand for 6 td trips 5 of which were in Canada is a drop in the bucket. His wife who is a judge is a panel moderator for one of the panels in the whole seminar, big deal really folks big deal. Lets cease funding to the communist broadcasting company (CBC) before we start to criticize the guy.
Other comments have been made about the minister and CDS getting spanked for personal use of government aircraft (I call it challenger math) was really not fought anywhere near hard enough by our elected officials. I hope to god the CDS was smart enough to pay back the assessed 1300 and change for his flight to rejoin his family (after being recalled for duty reasons - ramp ceremony) and then claim the cost of his cancelled flight to st martens in the realm of 2300 bucks. Just sayin
Other comments have been made about the minister and CDS getting spanked for personal use of government aircraft (I call it challenger math) was really not fought anywhere near hard enough by our elected officials. I hope to god the CDS was smart enough to pay back the assessed 1300 and change for his flight to rejoin his family (after being recalled for duty reasons - ramp ceremony) and then claim the cost of his cancelled flight to st martens in the realm of 2300 bucks. Just sayin
A
aesop081
Guest
Not_So_Arty_Newbie said:
14k here, 14k there......pretty soon, we're talking real money.
I mean, if we want to play devil's advocate and all.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
My issue with it all has SFA to do with the cost. It has to do with the principal. Of course the boss signed off and the claim was reimbursed IAW Treasury Board guidelines ... someone in VAC drafted it up as a "Professional Development" opportunity. PD is allowable and understandable.
However, these trips? PD? How is that? I don't see a single thing on the agenda related to Treatment, Care, Management or Administrating of Injured and Ill Service Members. IE: JOB related. Someone, somewhere, snowballed the Boss who was signing off by playing with wording etc to make this seem to be work-related PD for him (while conveniently neglecting to mention 9erDomestic was accompanying and doing the actual working/PD).
I see a bunch of unrelated and irrelevent-to-his-duties stuff. That's not PD; that's a taxpayer paid vacation to accompany your wife to HER work-related seminars. I do hope that the Province of New Brunswick paid HER costs as it certainly falls within the realm of PD related to her particular position.
Him, not even close.
However, these trips? PD? How is that? I don't see a single thing on the agenda related to Treatment, Care, Management or Administrating of Injured and Ill Service Members. IE: JOB related. Someone, somewhere, snowballed the Boss who was signing off by playing with wording etc to make this seem to be work-related PD for him (while conveniently neglecting to mention 9erDomestic was accompanying and doing the actual working/PD).
I see a bunch of unrelated and irrelevent-to-his-duties stuff. That's not PD; that's a taxpayer paid vacation to accompany your wife to HER work-related seminars. I do hope that the Province of New Brunswick paid HER costs as it certainly falls within the realm of PD related to her particular position.
Him, not even close.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Have to agree with Vern. The official reasons given to justify the trips to GB are hogwash. These conferences have nothing to do with the administration of anything.
I see just about all TD that goes through my unit, some is more useful than other to be sure. These however, are stretching it to the absurd. They are clearly trips taken to spend time with his wife.
I'm sure the conference is extremely interesting....to a judge, lawyer or lawmaker dealing in issues that often cross territorial lines. If he can dig up something that says some of the lectures deals with: legalities of on-job injuries and recovery costs; administration of health/insurance plans; changing services to fit drastically changing demographics in your client base; then maybe I'd buy it.
I'd love to sit in on some of these lectures, and a lot of others I see messages floating around about, but they have nothing to do with my job, my future jobs or really my professional development.
Do people at this level have PRR's and are these seminars on it as requested PD?
I see just about all TD that goes through my unit, some is more useful than other to be sure. These however, are stretching it to the absurd. They are clearly trips taken to spend time with his wife.
I'm sure the conference is extremely interesting....to a judge, lawyer or lawmaker dealing in issues that often cross territorial lines. If he can dig up something that says some of the lectures deals with: legalities of on-job injuries and recovery costs; administration of health/insurance plans; changing services to fit drastically changing demographics in your client base; then maybe I'd buy it.
I'd love to sit in on some of these lectures, and a lot of others I see messages floating around about, but they have nothing to do with my job, my future jobs or really my professional development.
Do people at this level have PRR's and are these seminars on it as requested PD?
Similar threads
