Time to BE HEARD!
I would encourage everybody to share this radio interview with your friends and those you believe will support veterans. We need your help, we need it now! Budget day is looming, you can make a difference, but only if you reach out to your MP and senator, only if you add your voice to ours.
| AM770 Listen Live interview with Canadian Veterans Advocacy | |
Submitted by Veterans’ Advocate Dennis Manuge in support for Michael Raymond.
January 19, 2012 Mr. Paul Brown – Area District Director of Nova Scotia for Veterans Affairs Canada Halifax District Office, 7105 Chebucto Rd – Suite 200, PO Box 8063, B3K-5L8
The Honourable Sean Casey – Veterans Affairs Critic for the Liberal Party of Canada Room 225 Confederation Bldg, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A-0A6 The Honourable
Peter Stoffer – Veterans Affairs Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canda Room242 Confederation Bldg, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A-0K6
Re: Michael Raymond Red Tape Barrier scheme effectively isolate Veterans from accessing VAC programs
I am writing to you today to complain as strongly as I possibly can that there exist VAC strategies which are designed to obstruct helping Veterans, and that these strategies have gone too far. From my perspective and in my experience, the front door for Veterans who need help in accessing certain programs behind the fortress of sandbags at VAC is through the office of first a Client Service Agent (CSA), and then if you successfully pass the initial screening, a VAC Case Manager (CM). The programs that I am referring to are;
Occupational therapist assessments/home visits; Attendance allowance, Exceptional Incapacity allowance, and communication with the Treatment Authorization Center (TAC) for need of assistance with prescriptions, and extension of Physiotherapy treatments limit requests. There are many official publications which guide VAC and the Veteran to understand these programs. The publications are difficult to obtain as access to information requests have to be written for each, but they do express an intention to help Veterans. I am referring to publications such as Veterans Health Care Regulations (VHCR), Veterans Policy Manual – Health Care (VPPM), Special Awards and Allowances etc. I consider these publications to be pro-Veteran publications, or rather written for the Veterans rights. I strongly argue that there exists other VAC internal use policies which contradict the publications referred to above. They are insurance mentality based and are intended to deny benefits. I can’t access them through ATIP as they are “VACEYESONLY” and are anti-Veteran policies designed to stall, frustrate and prolong help to Veterans who need it. From these anti-Veteran policies, training for VAC employees is organized, and then supervised at all levels. At a time when VAC staff numbers itself is on the chopping block by the Federal government, I urge you to break the VAC code of silence and release these policies to either, or both of the Veterans Affairs critics so that the necessary steps can be taken to get rid of them.
As a Veteran who served during the cold war, the Persian Gulf war, the Somali Civil War and in the Afghanistan operational area, I consider all Veterans to be the same, and accuse that modern day VAC has initiated its own private “cold war” against all Veterans who try and access pensions, benefits, or programs. I may not have the written proof in the form of access to these anti-Veteran policies, but I do have the negative experiences of trying to access the programs personally. I have had to seek my own legal council, to try and help with overcoming the barriers. With the help of my lawyer, and other Veterans, I better understand why I was denied so many appeals and programs; the bottom line is that VAC is trying to push us away from getting the help that we need from injuries sustained during our service. I believe strongly that I gave 22 years of service, rather than employment to the Canadian Forces. VAC employees through its union is rightfully fighting to keep employment so that it can help Veterans.
In the meantime, you sir, as Atlantic Area Director are in the chain of command at the Halifax District office. The same office which has access to my file. You are a supervisor at a level above the Team Leader, Case Manager, and Client Service Agent who were involved in the decision to limit my Attendance Allowance at grade 4. You are above my former Case Manager who told me over the phone that her hands were tied with respect to accessing additional physiotherapy, and again with respect to the Attendance Allowance that she was only allowed to award grade 4, and after that the Veteran must go through an Appeal process.
The application process that I was put through for Exceptional Incapacity Allowance was totally wrong. I am writing to the Critics for Veterans Affairs regarding this, and other issues. Please, reveal the anit-Veteran policies to the critics so that it can be stopped. With the proposed staff cuts you may be in line to loose your job anyway, so why not take the evidence we need to get help, and release it. I must further complain regarding the newest anti-Veteran tactic that I have been skewered on. It is an elaborate delay scheme involving Exceptional Incapacity Allowance. I argue that VAC staff received training in advance of the new changes to the Pension Policy Manual, and intentionally stalled Veterans who could and should have been advised to apply for EIA if they were more than 98% disabled.
I tried to apply and discussed it several times with my former Case Manager, and was pushed towards the Voc Rehab plan, PIA, instead. It was not what I wanted, and other Veterans were warning me that VAC was up to no good again in order to screw Veterans by pushing them towards the New Veterans Charter. Finally, I had enough, and informed my Case Manager that I retained a lawyer to help sort this out, and then before resigning from my case file she told me that I could apply all the while going back and forth with Head Office, and the Rehab Officer. I believe that she was handcuffed throughout the process by these anti-Veteran policies and training. In fact she said that here hands were tied. I am presently awaiting for an Appeal for my Attendance Allowance; the original Appeal date had to be delayed due to the slowness in obtaining documents from the Halifax District office (in fact the Appeal is in one month, and I still do not have the documents). The anti-Veteran policy to award a low rating and make the Veteran Appeal time after time is an insult, and adds to the level of stress and depression. I am handcuffed with respect to Physiotherapy treatment limits. The TAC seems to be above the law, and if you need additional physiotherapy for “maintenance” you will not get it. End of story.
The sickest are denied if they can’t get better. In my case I have 5 pensioned conditions, which are competing for an $800 physiotherapy treatment limit.
How fair is that sir?
Who is the warden with the keys for the sandbag fortress known as the TAC? Is his job on the line for the proposed staffing cuts? I have had to Appeal virtually every prescription written that the TAC was involved with. It got to the point where Nova Scotia MSI audited me three times due to the high frequency of doctor’s visits. I wrote to MSI, and told them that the VAC TAC requires sometimes up to 2 or 3 different prescriptions for the same item before they would consider it, and to leave me alone and audit the TAC instead. A good leader “looks after his troops”, and after they cannot serve any longer, we are about-turned to face the sand bag wall of VAC. I know that no system is perfect, but intentionally making it hard or impossible is just plain wrong. As assistant to the Atlantic Area Director, I assume that you already know all of what I just told you. It is what the Ombudsman described to me as a “systemic” problem. I ask you sir, to begin taking the sandbags off of the wall around VAC. The programs and benefits are intended for Veterans who need them.
Sincerely Michael Raymond 50 Redwood Ave Halifax N.S. B3P-1Y6 (902) 453-4035
Part 1
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=cf814aa826&view=audio&msgs=134b9140c29ea773&attid=0.1&zw
Part 2
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=cf814aa826&view=audio&msgs=134b9140c29ea773&attid=0.2&zw
part 3
https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=cf814aa826&view=audio&msgs=134b9140c29ea773&attid=0.3&zw
VRAB Meeting – Canadian Veterans Advocacy – January 25, 2012, Niagara Falls Ontario.
Be advised that a preliminary meeting has been arranged between the representatives of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and the executive of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy in Niagara Falls on January 25th, 2012. While the meeting is introductory in nature it is our hope that dialogue will become the foundation of a respectful relationship based on mutual objectives to ensure that our veterans are accorded the level of procedural respect is reference to conflict of interest, the admission of veteran’s physicians reports and the recognition of the benefit of the doubt all veterans are entitled to.
Do you have any concerns about the VRAB that you would like the CVA to raise on your behalf? Any questions that you would like posed either in a written or verbal form? The CVA is YOIR voice, the principals we were established to fight for were not decided by the founder or current executive, but through ongoing consultations with thousands of veterans, mothers, fathers, wives, sons and daughters… Should you wish to write a brief memo reference the manner you feel you have not been served by the VRAB, please do so through the Canadian veterans Advocacy website…
http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/contactus.html
One StandardCanadian Veterans Advocacy Situation Report, Dec 24th, 2011.
Seasons greetings from Niagara. The situation is serious so I will delve right to the point with the hope that should you be in touch with other veterans over the holiday season, you might be inclined to discuss the plight of many Canadian disabled veterans and encourage them to support the Advocacy as we fight to have Veterans Affairs Canada’s budget excluded from the governments 5-10 percent deficit reduction austerity program. The department is already under resourced and understaffed, that there unacceptable consequences already being inflicted on our veterans and that any further cuts will only serve to exacerbate the problem.
Ongoing Operations. The CVA continues to focus attention on the government’s proposed 1/2 billion dollar budget cuts to VAC and the consequential impact this will have on the service and standard of care for disabled veterans of all eras. The primary issue these past two weeks have been revelations by the Union Veterans Affairs Employees that have certainly justified the CVA’s battle for a complete exclusion of Veterans Affairs Canada’s operating budget. The quotes provided speak for themselves.
“I’ve had clients pass away before I can get equipment to them,” said Vaillancourt, one of 47 people working at the Island’s main Veterans Affairs office, located in downtown Victoria. Five staff members work at CFB Esquimalt, helping Canadian Forces members transition to civilian life.
“(Veterans are) falling through the cracks,” she said.
…Vaillancourt has 1,200 files, helping veterans or their widows acquire mobility devices, disability benefits and pensions, as well as helping them transition to civilian life. Because her workload is so heavy, the Esquimalt resident said she still can’t get to paperwork from April. Some colleagues are assisting veterans as far away as Regina.
Surely these revelations are of great concern to Minister Blaney and the leadership of Veterans Affairs Canada considering the promises to ensure that the quality of care veterans receive will not be affected by the budget cuts? Do they not also question the validity of streamlining the application, claims and service based resources when there is insufficient level of case managers to provide the services they need in a timely and efficient manner that our disabled veterans deserve? The harsh reality of these claims cannot be denied or dismissed, there must be a comprehensive approach to resolving these gross inadequacies and the formal acknowledgment on behalf of the minister that resources committed to provide for veterans health requirements will not be restricted by the government’s indiscriminate slash and burn approach to deficit-reduction or any dishonourable scheme to pay off the national deficit on the backs of our disabled veterans.
St Anne de Bellevue. Last week, the directors of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy traveled to Montréal from Southern Ontario to support the UVAE’s campaign to ensure that the standard of care for Ste Anne de Bellevue’s 400+ residents have been accorded by Veterans Affairs Canada for nearly a century will be maintained after the facility is transferred to provincial control and converted into a long term care facility open to the general public. Mr. Clark, CVA Client Services and I visited St. Anne’s after the last VAC Stakeholders Committee meeting in October and as reported during the last sit-rep, we were provided with a comprehensive briefing by Madame Gravel on the facilities current status. Mr Lalonde, OSISS, also provided a presentation about the national program and role Ste Anne’s currently provided. The presentations were followed by tours of the wards dedicated to our WW2 and Korean War era veterans. No questions were avoided, information was offered willingly, with great sincerity and with that in mind I would inform you that I was amazed at the standard of care, the compassion…
| Veteran’s hospital, Ste Anne de Bellevue, QC | |
Our government has a sacred obligation to these 400+ veterans call St. Ann’s their home. Many are suffering not only from service related disabilities but the natural physical and cognitive issues of growing older. A majority of these veterans are between the age of 80 and 95, they have become accustomed to the dedicated efforts VAC has provided and their relationship with staff is far much more complex than that of a orderly/patient relationship. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you like some stranger come into your room at three o’clock in the morning to change your diaper or someone you trust, know, and feel comfortable with after years of care and treatment? This is a issue directly concerning the QUALITY OF LIFE of our World War II and Korean era veterans deserve, the standard of excellence which Veterans Affairs Canada has attained at this facility and the need for binding safeguards, incorporated by the Harper Government, to ensure that the staff and the existing infrastructure responsible for the standard of excellence remains dedicated to veterans once the hospital is transferred.The budget cuts and the issue at Ste. Anne de Bellevue are interconnected, one cannot be separated from the other!
| CTV NEWS Ste Anne Hospital 15 Dec 2011 | |
Minister Blaney’s response to our pro-active presence at Ste Anne’s on the 15th does not address the standard of care issue nor the safeguards we are seeking to have implemented on behalf of the residents. The government would deflect attention from the primary issues by prioritizing priority care and services offered in French and English, issues that have never been in question. Minister Blaney did not address the issue of credible safeguards to ensure these veterans live out their lives in the dignified standard they have been provided.
Is it acceptable to you that Canadian veterans are dying before they are being provided the equipment that would have improved the quality of their lives prior to their deaths? Is it acceptable to you that one caseworker would have 1200 files of her desk and is backlogged on some for up to eight months? Is this the standard of care that you would expect for those who have been wounded or injured in the service of their nation? is it any wonder that so many veterans feel that they have been abandoned by this government? How can we ignore the plight of veterans of all eras, of those we have served with, who are suffering from mental or physical trauma and are NOT being provided the services they are entitled to by Veterans Affairs Canada because, even before the HALF BILLION DOLLAR cuts, the department has neither the staff or resources to fulfill its mandate?
Will we abandon the veterans residents of St Anne’s, those who fought at Ortona, Juno Beach, Kapyong, Hills 355 and 187… will we stand passive while our government abandons them to an unknown standard? Will we, veterans and patriots, ignore the plight of the nation’s most vulnerable veterans and the responsibility we have to rally to our brothers/sister in arms defense? Will we ignore the fact that veterans are dying before they are receiving the services they need! Does this reflect the standards of YOUR Canada?
This could be YOU tomorrow! Or your wife, husband, son or daughter; every generation of veterans will be affected…
Shall we to abandon the Sacred Obligation as has our government, who would now, even though profound existing inadequacies have been exposed, further decimate the budget responsible for our wounded warriors, RCMP and Police service officers?
Vigil for Veterans, 1st reading, Budget, House of Commons, Parliament Hill. There is still time for us to unite and to have an impact on the government’s decision. There is still time to fight to have VAC Budget excluded from any deficit reduction schemes, to encourage the Harper Government to accept its moral obligation to our disabled veterans, to honour the Sacred Bond that all Canadian parliaments are obliged to uphold once they send Canada’s Sons and daughters into Harm’s Way. To ensure the government and, equally important, the Canadian public hears our message, the Canadian Veterans Advocacy is organizing a Vigil for Veterans RALLY on Parliament Hill to coincide with the first reading of the budget in the House of Commons.
We must put a face to the misery the Harper government will inflict upon veterans of all eras should they follow through with the proposed budget cuts. Our mission, which will be conducted with great respect and dignity, will be to focus the nation’s attention on the current level of substandard treatment our veterans are being accorded by questioning the commitment they have to Canada’s wounded warriors and veterans, those who will suffer the profoundly adverse effects any further cuts would bear upon an already overburdened department?
Let us be realistic, the system is already deeply flawed, under-resourced and over-stretched. A further half billion dollars in budget reduction will leave no VAC client unaffected, whether it be through the abandonment of the standard of excellence the residents of Ste Anne de Bellevue currently enjoy or the counter-productive impact (see Victoria link) on VAC’s ability to provide services at a standard inclusive of prompt service and the expedient provision of treatment/services/compensation.
The Canadian Veterans Advocacy is encouraging veterans and Canadian patriots, those who have not served but support veterans honourable quest to defend our wounded veterans, to join with us on Parliament Hill during the 1st reading of the 2012 budget in the House of Commons. Strategically, this is a period where the national media, on all levels/mediums, traditionally provides live, nationwide coverage. We hope the concurrent presence of as many disabled veterans as we can muster and their supporters outside the House of Commons on Parliament Hill will provide an opportunity to focus national attention on the TRUTH, that our message will be broadcast into the homes of millions of Canadians. God willing, they will hear veterans cries, they will feel compassion for the the suffering these unjust policies are/have created and with true patriot love, they will rally to our cause to support those who have suffered the consequences of war and peace
We cannot, as a veterans community, win this battle alone.
We do not have the numbers or the unified presence of the traditional veteran’s organizations, nor is their time to launch a campaign to solicit their help. The task falls to us, veterans who believe that the oath of allegiance does not have an expiry date, that the bond we share with our brothers/sisters in arms is as strong now as it was when we served. We must adapt, recognize that we must attain the general public’s support if we are to generate the levels of political pressure required to convince the government of Canada to embrace is SACRED OBLIGATION to our troops, not shun it as they have been doing these past five years.
This situation is further compounded by the fact that the budget issue is time sensitive, ie, BUDGET DAY!
The strongest weapon in the Canadian Veterans Advocacy’s arsenal at this time is the TRUTH!
If we can assemble under one voice, if we focus Canadians attention on the consequences of the budget cuts to Canada’s Sons and Daughters, military, RCMP and Police Services veterans… we can prevail.
Once the parliamentary budget dates are set, formal announcements will be issued in relationship to the time and duration of the rally. Artist Don Ward has created some posters for the CVA, samples of which I have attached.
I repeat! The situation is critical, veterans of all eras, of all wars, peacekeeping and peacemaking missions are directly threatened by the impact these arbitrary budget cuts will impart to VAC’s ability to provide expedient and proficient care to Canada’s sons and daughters who have sacrificed so much in Canada’s name.
Budget day! Think about it. Think about what you can do to make a difference in a disabled veteran and his family’s life?
The CVA executive will be traveling to Ottawa from Niagara Falls, a very long trip (for me-health) but one that is absolutely necessary if we are to lead by example.I would encourage you to follow team Niagara’s example, to muster a car or vanload of veterans from your community, share travel expenses to stand beside us on Parliament Hill for the afternoon for what very well could one of the most important events in veterans advocacy. Your presence will make a profound difference, the effort they YOU made to journey to Ottawa symbolic of the patriotic spirit we share to ensure that all veterans, of all eras, are treated with the dignified standard of care reflective of a nation that acknowledges the Sacred Obligation parliament has for those they send to abroad to wage war, enforce the peace or engage in humanitarian operations in the aftermath the globe’s most destructive natural catastrophes in Canada’s name.
Pennies for Veterans. Once again I would extend our gratitude to the anonymous donor who deposited a little over $1800 to the Pennies for Veterans national bank account. Funds generated through this program/account are fully dedicated to supporting authenticated homeless veterans outreach programs. Since July 10, when the program was inaugurated at the Canadian Veterans National Rendezvous in Niagara Falls, we have raised close to $5000. To date, we have sent $1000 to Calgary Constable John Langford’s homeless veterans housing project in Calgary and $3000 to Halifax based Veterans Emergency Transitions Services (VETS) Canada’s proactive outreach operation in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The CVA is a long-standing supporter of the VETS Canada and after meeting with president and founder Jim Lowther at the CVNRV this past summer and discussed the VETS Canada concept at length, recognizes the urgent need for a dedicated organization willing to conduct proactive, ie, go out on the streets, outreach programs that focus on the plight of homeless veterans. Jim and his team have led the way in Halifax and over the past year has established an organization capable of effectively seeking out and offering assistance to veterans who are living on the streets of Halifax. We share in his dream to expand this project to include a home wherein veterans in transition have a place to reside with the proper levels of peer/professional support and without the pressures of living on the streets in reference to addictions or any other form of self-destructive behavior. We hope this will be a pilot project, one that will eventually expand throughout Canada, particularly in locations, such as Halifax, wherein there are no dedicated veterans organizations present to address their needs.
I trust we have provided enough things to ponder over the holiday period and as we enjoy the joyous time with loved ones and friends, I would encourage you to spare a thought about the times when you/we served this nation abroad at this wonderful time, of those who shared this profound experience, many who need our help now and those longer present to share in our good fortune. Their spirit lives within our memories, we have only to remember…
On behalf of the entire CVA team, I would extend to you a wonderful holiday season resplendent with the warmth of loved ones, good health, good friendship, good cheer, prosperity in spirit and happiness in the New Year.
Pro Patria Semper Fidelis
Michael L Blais CD
Founder/President, Canadian Veterans Advocacy
6618 Harper Drive, Niagara Falls, Ont, Cda.
L2E 7K6 // 905-357-3306 // Cell 905-359-9247
info@canadianveteransadvocacy.com
http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/index.html
https://www.facebook.com/groups/CdnVetsAdvocacy/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/150134285064687/
December 22, 2011 15:06 ET
OTTAWA, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – Dec. 22, 2011) - Today, Canada’s Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent renewed his call to Veterans Affairs Canada to grant Agent Orange ex gratia payment claims that are being denied to eligible claimants. Parent says that the claims in question are based on eligibility criteria that are clearly not compliant with the intent of the Order in Council (SI/2007-87 and SI/2010-96) that established the Agent Orange ex gratia payment.
“Veterans Affairs Canada is denying claims from caregivers based on a very narrow interpretation of the Order in Council concerning the definition of a ‘primary caregiver’ and ‘principal residence’. The definitions used by Veterans Affairs Canada would not withstand public or legal scrutiny. This is nothing short of scandalous!” said Parent. “One wonders how many other individuals have been denied the ex gratia payment unfairly.”
Since November 8, 2011, the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman has received a number of requests for assistance from applicants whose claims for the ex gratia payment have been denied by the Department. In one case, the widow of a man who met the eligibility criteria was denied payment on the grounds that she was not the primary caregiver because her husband was in a long-term care facility at time of his death and she did not live with him at the facility despite the fact that this spouse of 50 years continued to live in the principal residence that she shared with her husband for 23 years and continued to attend to his needs for the 17 months that he spent in the facility. Moreover, his name was still on the deed of the principal residence at the time of his death; he continued to receive mail there; and his personal belongings remained within the home.
“No one questions the need for eligibility criteria: Canadians have a right to demand that programs funded with their tax dollars are administered well, and determining who is eligible for programs is part of that,” said Parent. “But eligibility criteria must respect the spirit of the legislation to which they refer. The policies pertaining to primary caregivers developed by Veterans Affairs Canada to administer the Agent Orange ex gratia payment do not do that.”
The Order in Council defines a primary caregiver as someone who “immediately before the individual died, (a) was primarily responsible, without remuneration, for ensuring that care was provided to the individual; and (b) for a continuous period of at least one year, resided in the principal residence of the individual and maintained the individual or was maintained by the individual.”
“The widow in question ensured that her husband received the care that he needed by placing him in a facility when she could no longer care for him at home, and she visited that facility every day to assist staff where possible,” said Parent. “Unfortunately, the Department narrowly has interpreted the Order in Council to mean that care must be provided directly by the caregiver.”
As for the definition of ‘principal residence’, Veterans Affairs Canada has again narrowly interpreted the Order in Council by claiming that the caregiver must have lived in the same home together with the individual for an on-going period of at least one year prior to the individual’s death. In this case, the Department concluded that the long-term care facility was the husband’s primary residence. There is no requirement in the Order in Council for spouses to physically live together under the same roof and the Department’s definition of ‘principal residence’ is at odds with provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Based on this narrow interpretation, Veterans Affairs Canada concluded that the widow did not meet the definition of primary caregiver and denied her claim. “It is clear that this spouse meets the intent of the Order in Council and is being unfairly denied the Agent Orange ex gratia payment,” said Parent. “This is unfair!”
The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman is also raising questions about a number of other cases where individuals were denied because they did not meet the criteria for extenuating circumstances for late applications. Many of these applicants have provided very legitimate reasons for being late. One case, where the Office was successful in getting the Department to reconsider its decision, involved a serving member of the Canadian Forces on mission in the Middle East. “It is difficult to think of a more valid reason than that for being late,” said Parent.
Backgrounder
Definition of ‘primary caregiver’ and ‘principal residence’ for the Agent Orange ex gratia payment
The Agent Orange Ex gratia payment was established by Order in Council (SI/2007-87 and SI/2010-96). The Order in Council defines ‘primary caregiver’ and ‘principal residence’ as follows:
“primary caregiver” in relation to an individual, means the adult person who, immediately before the individual died,
(a) was primarily responsible, without remuneration, for ensuring that care was provided to the individual (emphasis is our own); and
(b) for a continuous period of at least one year, resided in the principal residence of the individual and maintained the individual or was maintained by the individual (emphasis is our own) http://gazetteducanada.gc.ca/archives/p2/2007/2007-10-03/html/si-tr87-eng.html
Veterans Affairs Canada defines “primary caregiver” and “principal residence” as follows:
The definition of a “primary caregiver” means you were the adult who, at the time of death, was primarily responsible for caring for an eligible individual and you did not receive a wage for providing this care. You must have lived in the same home together for an on-going period of at least one year prior to their death and you must have provided financial and emotional support to him or her, or have received that same support from him or her. http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/orange/qa_qr#01
A primary caregiver is defined as an adult who:
1) was primarily responsible for caring for the individual, at the time of death (emphasis is our own);
2) was not receiving a wage for providing this care;
3) was living in the same home as the deceased individual for an on-going period of at least one year prior to the individual’s death (emphasis is our own); and
4) was providing financial and emotional support to the individual or received that same support from him or her at the time of death.
To be eligible for the ex gratia payment as a primary caregiver, all four of these requirements must be met.
When the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman asked for clarification, the Department provided the following response:
For the purposes of the ex gratia payment a resident is a person who ordinarily lives at a place that has always been, or that has been adopted as, his or her dwelling place, and to which the person intends to return when away from it. A person can only have one place where he or she is a resident and it cannot be lost until another is gained.
Where an individual applies as a primary caregiver of someone who lives at a different address (i.e. a manor or nursing home) the person is not eligible as she/he does not meet either part of the definition of a primary caregiver; that is, immediately before the individuals death she/he was not providing care to the individual and did not live in the primary residence of the individual.
Position of the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman argues that “ensuring that care was provided” does not mean that the primary caregiver is directly responsible for providing the care. The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman argues that there is no requirement in the Order in Council for the spouses to have lived in the same physical location together, as inferred by the Department’s definition. Furthermore, the Office contends that the Department’s definition of ‘principal residence’ is not consistent with the definition of ‘principal residence’ provided under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.
Instead of liberally interpreting the Order in Council for the Agent Orange ex gratia payment, Veterans Affairs Canada has applied rules that limit accessibility.
MP Corneliu: First of all let me congratulate you for serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and of course being a Senior Officer.
As one of the close to 300K Veterans in Canada and as I am told having served in a theatre of war you will have a full understanding of what it is like to be in uniform for this great country Canada.
I was advised that in a recent gathering you met my son in law BJ and you and he discussed the one large issue Veterans have with governments not listening to them in what has been termed a claw back or pension reduction when we turn 65 years old.
Before we go any farther on this issue let me advise you that i have received the same explanation from my own MP Ron Cannan, The Prime Minister of Canada, Finance Minister, MP Laurie Hawn, MP General O’Connor, and a couple other MPs who all stated that we Veterans do no lose money when we reach the magic age of 65. Therefore please do not send me another explanation as to what actually goes on as it is a waist of your and my time.
While veterans do have an issue with the Claw Back or pension reduction what bothers the hell out of most of us is the fact that back in 1966 when the Liberal Government brought into existence the Military Pension, NO ONE, NOT ONE MILITARY MEMBER WAS INVITED TO THE TABLE TO DISCUSS THIS PENSION ISSUE.
Now sir does this not seem a little odd in this day and age or even back in 66 when I was serving that the government of Canada, the Liberals, brought about legislation for its military without our input. This must gall the hell out of you having to put up with Liberal legislation. I wonder what the PC opposition had to say at that time. Perhaps I will seek and find out.
Can you imagine as a professional engineer serving the Cdn Armed Forces in a theatre of war and the government tells you exactly what equipment and how to exact your mission without some input from you. Wouldn’t happen now would it but yet you agree with the government legislating a pension for its members without input from the rank and file.
MP Hawn, he himself a retired LCol had stated a very large amount of money it would cost to change this legislation but our actuaries differ. The problem being is we can also compile facts and figures as released to us from government sources all legal of course.
Again, this claw back legislation can be changed, the cost is not as high as once stated by MP Hawn and well within the scope of our present pension funding.
As of this letter, successive governments, but not this government have used close to 32 billion dollars of our pension fund surplus to do as they see fit. Note pension surplus.
Thirty two thousand million dollars of which close to 20 billion was exacted from the RCMP and Military pension surplus. Now if we have such a surplus what logical reason is there for not changing the legislation. IT WOULD CERTAINLY NOT COST 20 BILLION DOLLARS.
BE well mon ami and hopefully you might be one of the few MPs who might listen and eventually side with us. This will exact a huge cost to your new vocation if you do so but you were a soldier, a Major and a leader of Canadian Armed Forces.
Dale Dirks. veteran.
Subject: Bill C-215 Second reading, debate and vote
Reference: Annuity campaign paper (Attached)
Sir,
Military/RCMP Veterans find it difficult to understand why elected Ministers continue, 6 years later, to mislead the House of Commons with regards to the facts pertaining to the Veterans CPP Annuity Benefit reduction programme that is affecting Canada’s National Heroes and their Families.
Hopefully, this condensed presentation of facts will be read and studied by Members of Parliament whom where elected to represent the Canada’s Veterans.
Facts:
Bill C-215 – An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. (Deletion of deduction from Annuity)
In 1965/66 the Government of Canada has deliberately or otherwise, without consultation, imposed on Military/RCMP Personnel a gross injustice and unfairness by merging rather than stacking their Annuity and CPP contributions.
When the Government of Canada enacted the CPP plan, its intention was to provide another source for an income security program supplementing the Old Age security pension plan.
On January 1, 1966 the Canadian Forces employee’s contributions rate was reduced from 9.3% TO 7.5% of gross rate of pay. The “so called” reduced rates generated a surplus of over 20 billion dollars. Over the years the CPP rates substantially increase to 4.95% and have accumulated a surplus of over 230 billion. Forces personnel’s contributions continue to be listed separately on their pay guide. They are not merged!
The 2009 annual pension report indicated that they were 39,192 Military Annuitants over the age of 65. The total Annuity cost for all CF Vets was $2.391 billions. The CF pension assets recorded for 31 March 2009 was $6.94 billions. More than sufficient funds to terminate the CPP benefit reduction program.
Why are Veteran’s indexing revenues reduced at age 65?
Why are Disabled Veterans Annuity reduced?
Why reduce Disabled Veterans Annuity indexing revenues?
Misleading facts:
Conclusion:
Veterans have not requested retroactive payments. They seek no funds from the Public purse therefore a Royal recommendation is not required. Veterans believe that all Annuity plans must pay for their own benefits. A surplus of over $6.94 billions is more than sufficient funds to pay for our unreduced CF Annuity benefits. It’s time for the Government of Canada to put its kind words of admiration and respect towards its Veterans in action by demonstrating your recognition and appreciation in a tangible way to Veterans and their Families. All MP’s are advised to read the attached campaign paper and pay specific attention to the Military service consideration and the endorsement of the Campaign column. Please take note that 54 former Generals Officers and RCMP Superintendents have supported our unjust and unfair CPP Annuity benefit reduction issue. They served Canada with Honour and dignity, they can’t all be wrong!
Prime Minister of Canada it is your duty to fix this Veterans Annuity issue by allowing a democratic free vote in the House of Commons. Remember that we are living in a free Country today because some Veterans shed some blood, some did not return, some were prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice and some Families gave it their all.
Sincerely,
John Labelle
Veterans Annuity Campaign
Coordinator
(Trust the Lord! Serve the People!)
Greetings to all,
Since the formation of the Equitas Society on September 19, 2011, two fund raising events have occurred with another event scheduled for November 25, 2011. On October 14th, 2011 over 250 people attended Hazelmere Country Club in South Surrey, British Columbia and supported the disbursement costs of disabled soldiers by providing $20,000.00 in donations. Guest speakers the Hon. John Fraser and Mr. Don Sorochan now have their speeches on You-tube. I urge everyone to share these speeches with your contacts via e-mail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95O5lgdCZBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlgPoBG6YQ&feature=related
On November 17, 2011, a private function was held at the Vancouver Club with 50 invited guests. These guests have a circle of influence in the Vancouver area and they were shocked to learn that disabled Canadian soldiers have had their benefits reduced by the New Veterans Charter. Interestingly, these business leaders are the same people who support the various political parties. Given the planned elimination of government funded political party subsidies, all political parties will have to explain their actions to the public to obtain their funding. No doubt there will be some tough questions for political parties to where they stand on the New Veterans Charter. Many of these business leaders offered their financial support to the Equitas Society. The results of those commitments will be known over the next few weeks.
During this event, Miller Thomson lawyer, Don Sorochan, raised three critical issues. Firstly, Mr. Sorochan outlined how Veterans Affairs Canada approached all federal party leaders with their promise of a much improved disabled soldier compensation package. The party leaders, in a rare act of unity, agreed to support the New Veterans Charter thinking that they were helping disabled soldiers. They did so without the usual due diligence. They didn’t read the fine print! Many say that Veterans Affairs Canada pulled a fast one on the government. In fact, many say Veterans Affairs Canada is still misleading parliamentarians with their “spin” on veteran disability benefits. Listening to this story, I couldn’t help but think that these facts bolster the need for the courts to get involved in this matter, as in many ways our Parliament has failed disabled soldiers on this issue.
Secondly, Mr. Sorochan spoke of a 2010 Queens University analysis of the New Veterans Charter. The university found that the New Veterans Charter provided about 40% less for disabled soldiers than did the compensation programs before 2006. Upon looking at the university’s research it reviewed regular soldiers’ disability benefits. If reserve soldiers’ benefits were reviewed, I believe the numbers for them would be much worse. The weight of this research allows Equitas to spend less time “proving the case” and more time focusing on the solution, which appears to be in the courts and thus the Equitas Society raising the required disbursement funds.
Lastly, Mr. Sorochan stated that many well deserving law suits fail because there is not enough disbursement funds to book the court time and cover other costs. I then thought that Equitas may also need to cover the government’s costs, on behalf of the represented disabled soldiers, should the law suit fail. Thereby, there needs to be a disbursement “war chest”, so Miller Thomson can represent disabled soldiers with complete confidence.
Approaching the Veterans National Day of Protest in November many media outlets contacted Equitas and Miller Thomson for information on the planned law suit. The proposed class action law suit received media coverage in The Vancouver Province, the National Post and other media outlets. More established veteran organizations had good national media coverage on the New Veterans Charter and the message is getting out to the public that there is a problem with this Act. Nevertheless, many people still seem surprised when hearing of this issue, so more work on public education is required. Media coverage is not our primary focus, but such coverage does help raise funds when citizens become aware of the issues.
Regarding disabled soldiers who are contacting Equitas, on average two soldiers per week make an inquiry. Once these soldiers are determined to have made a claim under the New Veterans Charter, they are put in direct contact with Miller Thomson. Their files remain confidential to the law firm and Equitas has no other dealings with the soldiers unless the soldiers wish to stay in contact, a few do.
In the short-term, Equitas needs to focus on raising disbursement funds, referring disabled soldiers to Miller Thomson and further developing the organizational structure. Starting at the next Directors’ meeting, firms who specialize on raising funds will make presentations for possible working relationships. Personally, I see this fight for equal worker disability benefits as a social issue that really involves more people than just soldiers. It is a fight for all Canadian workers. As a result, there may be merit in approaching the major labour organizations for financial support since this court action will affect Canadian workers and their disability benefits for many years to come. The argument is any reduced benefits to one group of federal employees (soldiers) could spread to other Canadian workers as it sets a new standard of care (reduced) required by the employer.
Over the next few months, more disabled soldiers’ files are needed by Miller Thomson. It is the strength of these cases that will be presented to the courts. The offer from Miller Thomson to represent disabled soldiers in a legal challenge of their benefits is time sensitive; it is now or never for the soldiers.
Regarding Equitas as a society, work is needed to bring in the many people who have asked to help out on this mission. The Equitas Directors will need to organize the working committees they are responsible for and bring in these volunteers. In addition, the terms for the Special Advisory Committee needs to be finalized and the associated arrangements made with those distinguished Canadians who are willing to help Equitas and this cause. Communication links such as Face Book and Twitter are required to reach the ‘new” generation of soldiers and younger citizens. On administration issues, a trust fund and a charitable number are issues that must be completed in a timely manner. To assist with these internal items, I will be recommending to the Board of Directors that the society creates an Executive Director position. I would like to congratulate Equitas Society Director, Wayne Baldwin, on becoming the Mayor of the City of White Rock on November 19th. As a retired Major in the Canadian Forces, Wayne’s focus will be the point-of-contact for disabled soldiers who wish to discuss the proposed legal action with someone who understands their situation from a military perspective. Great progress has been made to date, but even more progress is required to complete the mission of obtaining equal disability benefits for Canadian soldiers as those disability benefits provided to other federal employees or to workers covered by provincial compensation programs.
Respectfully submitted, Jim Scott President Equitas Society
