CPP Deductions for Veterans Benefits

A law suit, now this! Stop CPP deductions from #veterans PERIOD and NOW @JustinTrudeau @HedyFry @kenthehr https://t.co/bzQLyStLdX

— Jim Newton (@jimnewt) November 5, 2016

Stop CPP Deductions for #Veterans Benefits @HedyFry @kenthehr @JustinTrudeau #cdnpoli https://t.co/n1HKkMqiiV

— Jim Newton (@jimnewt) November 7, 2016

WOW, I knew that there was a law suit on going, and if you are a Veteran you likely got this:

Currently they are taking $1200 a month from me, and I have always thought paying into the CF Pension was a waste of time as it has been deducted for years:

Now an NDP MP has started a bill to stop these clawbacks, I like the second bill as it applies to this directly and I quote:

The second bill ends the unfair reduction of service pensions for retired and disabled Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans.

“The service pensions of Canadian Forces or RCMP members are unfairly offset when members begin to collect Canada Pension Plan benefits or if members become disabled and collect Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits,” stated Mathyssen. “This bill will end these unfair reductions.”

“For their service and sacrifice, veterans and their families deserve to be treated with financial dignity when they retire or become disabled,” said Johns.  “We also need to support our veterans, RCMP veterans, public sector workers and their families.  I am pleased to be able to second both these bills today to amend the discriminatory and unfair legislation we currently have.  

See her link here

Feel free to share this with your local MP or any Liberal MP near you.  Thanks!

Veterans Parking

So excited about the overwhelming positive response of local stores that I have approached after seeing this article:

Started by the store owner himself:

https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/new-parking-sign-draws-applause-411520

So far Save On Foods has said YES at two locations, Superstore has said YES, Walmart said YES and installed signs really fast, and first phone call to Safeway was very positive as well.

Going National next.....

Stores interested in signs can contact:

Rob Beischer at Marcom Signs and Graphics  Work Tel 6047954005 

Denny's Penticton, BC:

Thank you Walmart for your support - temporary signs up so fast!

Permanent sign:

On Twitter?

Please RT and Like this https://twitter.com/jimnewt/status/788116925221961728

Going up Nov 11th, 2016 at Save On Foods Garrison:

Save On Foods Sardis:

RT and Like on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/jimnewt/status/792095674678382592

Free parking in Coquitlam:

http://www.coquitlam.ca/city-services/roads-and-transportation/traffic-operations-construction/parking.aspx
Parking is free at all times for vehicles displaying a veteran's license plate

Lower Mainlaind info here:
http://www.surreyleader.com/news/10900846.html?mobile=true

City of Richmond – Allows complimentary parking on a year round basis for Richmond veterans by using an "identification sticker" process.
City of White Rock – Allows complimentary parking on a year round basis for White Rock veterans by using an "identification sticker" process.
City of New Westminster – Allows complimentary parking on a year round basis for vehicles bearing a "veteran" license plate.
City of Coquitlam – Allows complimentary parking on a year round basis for vehicles bearing a "veteran" license plate.
City of Port Moody – Allows complimentary parking on a year round basis for vehicles bearing a "veteran" license plate. 

Abbotsford Airport: free hourly parking for Veterans

Sweet!! Support from the City of Chilliwack:

Thanks Mayor Gaetz!!

Matt Edwards has a point....

In a recent post on Facebook, Matt highlighted how Veterans benefits are taxed, yet WCB is not.  I find that interesting especially ELB which is an identical version of WCB but for the military. Why the double standard? And why the double standard which puts those people who were willing to put their lives on the line for their country, in a worse position than those on WCB? Hmmmm.....

Here is Matt's post:

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153789095573980&id=588798979&set=gm.1652294808374479

2010 Gov response to ACVA report

Note $1000 PIA Supplement for life to STACK with other VAC benefits

Why is Earning Loss Benefit taxed? In fact, why are any VAC benefits taxed?

I believe Canada ought to repeal Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f.1) where they specifically stated ELB is to be taxed.

Though similar to SISIP, ELB is WORKERS' COMPENSATION for soldiers.

SISIP is taxed solely because Canada paid a part of the premium.

ELB does not have any premium.

Therefore it is ARBITRARILY taxed.

I think it is taxed as it is based on SISIP. 

But it is based on WCB principles, namely:

1. Employer pays all of the premium.

2. Soldier loses right to sue.

3. Payment is guaranteed & speedy (IKR)

4. Exclusive jurisdiction.

5. No tax, capital loss & capital replacement.

In fact, taxation of ELB is a dangerous precedent. 

As ELB is akin to WCB, is WCB tax next on the hit list?

Fantino: An Open Letter

Sir,

On 07 April, 2014 at 8:03 PM on Twitter you tweeted “Disappointed that Union of Veterans Affairs Employees financing Veterans groups with secret "War Fund."”  You then provided a link to the House Publications that serves as an online record of evidence provided by witnesses.  

Julian Fantino @JulianFantino 

Disappointed that Union of Veterans Affairs Employees financing Veterans groups with secret "War Fund."http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspxLanguage=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6493940&File=0…

You sir, have abused parliamentary committee testimony for political gain. You sir, have disgraced an element of democracy that is vital to the welfare of Canada.  If Prime Minster Harper had a shred of competence he would fire you from the Conservative caucus before you have a chance to resign. 

Let me be very clear on why you need to be removed.  The concept behind Parliamentary Committee testimony is to inform and educate MPs.  The primary benefit of parliamentary testimony for MPs is maintaining contact with the population and avoiding the groupthink of the Ottawa “bubble”. 

Individuals and organizations take time and effort to prepare for an appearance before any Parliamentary Committee.  Canadians appear because they care and/or have a vested interest in the committee’s business.  Canadians feel they are partaking in an important role in our democracy.  Most Canadians believe that MPs on committees are interested in what is brought before them. 

You sir, obviously have a different position.  You have proven that political gain is you objective.  Furthermore, you have indicated that Parm Gill MP is your willing toady.  Gill sifts the dirt and you fling it at those who have taken a bullet for you. 

Why would the wounded, families, individual veterans, experts, or Veteran Organizations bother to provide evidence if it is to be abused or used for political gain?

Any politician who would use testimony before a Parliamentary Committee as a source of a political attack does not deserve to hold office.

Please do the honourable thing and resign.

Sincerely,

David T. MacLeod CD MA

Fire Fantino from Jim Newton on Vimeo.

It’s time to reconsider service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada

Monday, March 31, 2014 The Hill Times Page11

It’s time to reconsider service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada

(Photo) Too often, structural changes are proposed to deal with problems that are actually the symptoms of a much larger issue.

(Photo) The Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright

Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent says the outcomes often experienced by veterans who are denied benefits, after having gone through the entire application and appeal process, are a symptom of problems rooted in the application process itself. If we fixed the front end of the process, we would reduce the effort (and cost) currently expended to provide the various levels of appeal at the end of the process.

By VETERANS OMBUDSMAN GUY PARENT
Published: Monday, 03/31/2014 12:00 am EDT
Last Updated: Monday, 03/31/2014 12:12 am EDT

OTTAWA—Too often, structural changes are proposed to deal with problems that are actually the symptoms of a much larger issue. Concerning problems with service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada, we need to deal with the root causes and, to do that effectively, we need to understand the end state we are trying to achieve.  Simply going for structural change, as proposed by Michel Drapeau and Joshua Juneau in their Jan. 13, 2014 article in The Hill Times, where they put forward the need to create a new administrative oversight body, may justify the existence of such a new organization, but would it be any more effective than the current structure if we haven’t addressed the root causes of today’s problems? I don’t think so.

The support of veterans and their families through effective and fair access to benefits—regardless of where or when one served—should be a priority for Canada. Since the current way of doing business is not generating the results needed to resolve the problems facing veterans and their families, we need to change our vision of the future and tackle the problem of service delivery head-on at the root level.

I believe that the structural elements necessary to effectively deliver benefits and services to veterans are in place today, but the system continues to fail some of our veterans for two primary reasons.  The first reason is addressed in my report on the New Veterans Charter and concerns the shortcomings in three Charter program areas: financial, vocational rehabilitation and assistance, and family support. The second reason is a complex, multi-layered and outdated service delivery process.  

The outcomes often experienced by veterans who are denied benefits, after having gone through the entire application and appeal process, are a symptom of problems rooted in the application process itself.  If we fixed the front end of the process, we would reduce the effort (and cost) currently expended to provide the various levels of appeal at the end of the process.  

Specifically, if applicants had a clear understanding of application requirements; if they received full disclosure on what documentation the decision maker was considering; if they were consulted in the process when documentation was not sufficient, and; if they received very clear and understandable reasons for decisions that showed the logic for the decision, we would likely see a reduction in the number of reviews and appeals.  

Indeed, I have reported on this in the past and emphasized that Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board should be focusing on finding ways of making the right benefit adjudication decision on the first application based on liberally interpreting legislation, rather than expending effort (and cost) on perfecting the appeal process. 

Let’s expand on this further.

Once service relationship has been established, what would happen if Veterans Affairs Canada started accepting veterans’ documentation at the front end of the process at face value and applied a presumption that military service has an impact on veterans and their family, that the majority of veterans are honest and that medical professionals are qualified to provide the appropriate substantiation. Would the benefit adjudication process fall apart? I doubt it. 

If the criteria are clearly communicated and a medical professional provides a diagnosis, why does every application need to be scrutinized further in the minutest detail? This level of examination for every application is slowing down the application process for all veterans and affecting access for many eligible veterans on the off chance that someone may not qualify for a benefit. 

Is that fair? 

Without getting into the mechanics of how this would work, let’s look at this idea conceptually. How would Canadians like it if the Canadian Revenue Agency made no presumptions when citizens file their income tax return? If they weren’t afforded some presumptions it would be a long, drawn out process for everyone with an audit on all of their filed information before a decision could be made. We’re talking months, if not years, on the adjudication of one tax year alone. I don’t think many Canadians would be happy with this scenario. Do you? So, why are veterans subjected to such scrutiny by the Veterans Affairs Canada’s service delivery application process?

I suggest that Veterans Affairs Canada adopts a system similar to that used for the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, or the Canada Revenue Agency whereby if the documentation criteria are met, benefits are provided and periodic audits are done on files to ensure quality control and to detect any fraudulent applications. In fact, this approach is already being used by Veterans Affairs Canada in some areas of service delivery, such as health-related travel or the Veterans Independence Program, so why not for the application process of other benefits?

And, I’ll go further. 

I believe that the current system of veterans’ legislation is too complex. Generations of legislation have been piled on top of the other without sufficient attention to simplifying the complexity of this legislative build-up. Complexity is costly and at a time of economic restraint, would it not make sense to stop tinkering with individual components, collapse legislation and adopt a plain language approach.  

In addition, is it not time for Veterans Affairs Canada to begin to truly liberally interpret legislation, as it is meant to do? Is it not time that the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada services and benefits are better aligned so that the transition from military service to civilian life is much less complex than it is today?  Something as simple as starting a Veterans Affairs Canada file the moment a member joins the Canadian Armed Forces, conducting a direct transfer of files when a service person transitions from the Canadian Armed Forces to Veterans Affairs Canada, and providing a veterans identification card when a service person leaves, could be major enablers to improve how services and benefits are provided.

Last fall, the Veterans Consultation Group called on the Government of Canada to have a “heroic moment” and do what is right for our veterans and their families. Now is the time to move forward and reconsider service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada.  

Finding better ways to support our veterans and their families is not impossible, but it does require a change in our vision of the future. The gaps that need to be addressed in the current suite of benefits have been identified and validated in my report on the New Veterans Charter. We need to make these changes and then move forward with a new vision of service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada. Anything less is a disservice to veterans and their families and Canadian taxpayers.

The time for action is now. The future awaits us. 

Guy Parent is Canada’s Veterans Ombudsman.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

 

Lucille Hodgins

Media Relations and Parliamentary Affairs Advisor

Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Tel: 613-943-7884

Cell: 613-617-7205

The Spitirt of Denial at VRAB - great job Dave!

Veteran Watch is a collection (not organization) of like-minded veterans willing to take the time and effort to conduct meaningful research into the welfare of veterans. What Veteran Watch provides as evidence is well-researched and credible.  In this case, if the government cannot ensure and effective VRAB; Veteran Watch will document and comment.  

As the author of the attached document I give all recipients permission to disseminate to the public, other organizations, and the media.  See here for the document: http://bit.ly/1gmEwXq Given the concerns voiced by the OVO, Parliamentary Committee and, most importantly, Veterans it was appropriate to conduct a review of VRABs behaviours. Peter MacKay MP and opposition members were included in the original email as the Department of Justice has a stake in the effective functioning of Federal Boards.

The report provided is the first of three that concern VRAB. The report indicates that VRAB has not adequately responded to the criticisms made by both the Parliamentary Committee and the OVO.  Instead it indicates that VRAB has paid mere lip service or "spun" its responses.  The second report is in production and examines how VRAB responds to Federal Court decisions.  The third report examines how Veterans perceive their treatment by VRAB.  Data collection of the third report has only recently begun.  

The effective functioning of VRAB directly affects every veteran who potentially requires the services of VAC. Those veterans adversely affected by the New Veterans Charter will feel the negative effects mentioned in this report more sharply than the rest of the veteran population.  

The original recipients of the email were politicians - they we sent their copies mere minutes before you.  Separate emails with the same content will be disseminated to elements of the media.  

Please direct all questions to the undersigned.

Sincerely,

David T. MacLeod CD MA

Veteran Watch

veteranwatch.blogspot.ca

@veteranwatch

902 482-0753

Minister Fantino do you have an alternative to the unaccountable VRAB Board?

Minister Fantino,

Thank you for reviewing my request but I do not trust and have no faith in Larlee given his previous misleading letters, misleading presentation to Parliamentary/ Senate Committee's and not being held accountable for inappropriately spending taxpayers money in trips to England. 

Do you have an alternative solution?

The Board that you are hiding behind and using as an excuse not to do the right thing has already ignored one specialist's report, and I do not trust them even though a second doctor has backed the first one up.  Those I have now uploaded to my VAC file and are also here http://bit.ly/1dR6K9P

The assessment that was done on my case initially after I finally won after 13 years, was done on a report for winning my case, and I was not told by BPA to have him speak to the table of disabilities as I had not won yet.  When I did win, I was not brought in as expected by your department for an assessment as I should have been, and as I stated the doctor's more specific report was completely ignored by the non medical VRAB Board members.

Again, I ask you do you have an alternative other than the unaccountable VRAB Board?

You would think that with the recent suicides that you would treat this seriously rather than denying me depressive Meds as your department recently has done.

http://bit.ly/1bsy6Sy

Captain (Retired) Jim Newton

Class action lawsuit moves forward

Good news, Justice Weatherill of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has recently ordered the class action lawsuit pursued by Miller Thompson on behalf of the six plaintiff's to go forward despite the appeal. This means that Government's appeal will be dealt with concurrent to the main lawsuit and Government lawyers are required to have their statement of defence submitted to the Court by the end of January 2014.

More to follow,

Harold

http://equitassociety.ca/mission

Injured Veterans are Being tossed to the Curb

From my personal experience I would have to agree!

Read my Spirit of Denial blog HERE

This has got to STOP NOW!  Deny deny deny is how they treat us Veterans, and coming up on Nov 11th they will shake our hands and pretend they treat us ok.  Let's face it everything they do is all about saving money.  While I won after 13 years, they were only liable for 3 years of back pay.  5 years is what I should have received, but of course they didn't cause they will want to save money no matter the excuse. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-6/page-11.html

Lucky for me mine was on the old system due to my application date, so at least I don't have to be on the NVC for the lump sum get out of our faces payment which is a fraction of what the old system was, but oh wait - if you don't like the one lump sum they will give you that lesser amount in four even smaller payments.

I guess I must be one of the Veterans "at a different level of service" than most others here:



as not only did I have to fight a brutal battle for 13 years but now after I won, they have chosen to ignore the specialists report who they finally did believe - I have to wait again for another hearing to present a second doctor's opinion.  But it is possible that the non-medical unaccountable board members like VRAB Board Members (Richard A. Rennie and Richard Bonin)  will find yet another excuse to deny another medical opinion.

The Spirit of Denial has gone on long enough.  Minister Fantino enough with the delays, do a Ministerial review and grant my percentage as it should be without any further delay.  And grant me the 5 years or back to the date of the original application as you REALLY SHOULD!

Oh ya, forgot to mention my own fight with SISIP and LTD, I had to take them to court, settled on the court room steps and then had to give my lawyer $20,000+.

Enough is enough Minister Fantino act for this Veteran NOW.

One Veteran, One Standard.

Veterans Privacy Breaches Prompt Call For Inquiry

NDP veterans affairs critic Peter Stoffer is calling for a public inquiry into breaches of privacy with the medical information of former military members.

Harold Leduc — a prominent, long-standing member of the country's Veterans Review and Appeal Board — had his privacy violated twice in an alleged smear campaign, The Canadian Press revealed last week.

Leduc, who spent 22 years in the military, claimed he was a target for gossip, innuendo and intimidation because he often sided with veterans in his review decisions.

His private medical information was used as ammunition.

Dennis Manuge, a veteran from Musquodoboit Harbour, N.S., told CBC News he believed his privacy had also been violated in the process of suing the federal government over veterans' pensions. He filed an Access to Information request on the suggestion of his lawyers.

"I had over 1,000 hits to my file," Manuge said Monday.

"When I saw Harold Leduc's story break in the media, there was almost validation because all of us are outspoken and all of us have been targeted."

Manuge said he and several others have complained to the federal privacy commissioner, asking her to forward the issue to the RCMP for a criminal investigation.

"It's not about the money, it's about the trust. I thought we lived in a democracy and I thought that's why I signed up — to ensure that our freedoms were protected," he said.

In Leduc's case, the Canadian Human Rights Commission ordered the veterans board to pay him $4,000 for harassment he had suffered from other agency members.

Jean-Christophe de le Rue, a spokesman for Minister of Veterans Affairs Steven Blaney, said in an email that the federal government considers privacy its utmost concern.

"Minister Steven Blaney believes that any violation of our veterans privacy is totally unacceptable. Our government took action over a year ago to ensure disciplinary measures for those who violate the law," he wrote.

"Our government wants to ensure that the privacy of all veterans remains protected."

Stoffer said he doubts that.

"First of all have an inquiry into it and open it up," he told reporters.

"The privacy commissioner said these individuals broke the law. Usually if you break the law, you are either fired from your job, jailed or imprisoned, or fined. None of that happened to anybody."

Stoffer said he believes Leduc's and Manuge's cases are the tip of the iceberg.

"There is no question that the department officials within that Department of Veterans Affairs used sensitive personal information to denigrate the applicant or the person who is applying for the benefit," he said.

"That's why they did it so when it finally came to the final appeal, they say, 'Well, you know, that guy is not all normal or whatever; just ignore him and it will go away.' No. Using personal medical information and psychiatric information was wrong."