| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. |
 Author
|
Topic: Agent Orange Gagetown (Read 8151 times)
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
The Edmonton Sun
DATE: 2007.10.30
PAGE: 7
Agent Orange payout 'modest' $20,000 offered to ill Gagetown
residents
Government compensation for victims of Agent Orange testing on a New
Brunswick base is a paltry sum, say former military personnel.
In September, the federal government announced that it would offer a
one-time, tax-free payment of $20,000 to anyone who lived on or near
CFB Gagetown during seven days of testing in 1966 and 1967, and who
is now suffering from an illness associated with Agent Orange, a
highly toxic herbicide used by the U.S. military in Vietnam.
"My gut tells me that $20,000 is a modest figure," said Maj.-Gen.
Lewis Mackenzie. Though he feels the payout is low, Mackenzie -
himself a commander at Gagetown from 1987-89 - said he understands
why the Canadian government allowed the United States to test the
unregistered herbicide on the heavily forested base.
"It was firmly believed that there were no long-term effects," he
said.
"Looking back at that time, it doesn't surprise me that they took that
offer."
In 1974, Edmontonian Anthony Ferguson spent six months as a
peacekeeper in Vietnam and was exposed to high levels of Agent
Orange.
The Canadian government recently compensated him with $38,000 for
diabetes and 5% of his pension - or about $140 per month - for
prostate cancer, conditions he developed as a result of his exposure
to the toxic defoliant.
The 74-year-old isn't pleased with the latter figure and is outraged
by
the discrepancy between his payout and the Gagetown payout.
"They're the same people. They've been exposed to the same thing," he
said. Mackenzie said the difference between the payout figures
probably has to do with eligibility.
The number of Canadians who were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam
is probably around 100, he said, as opposed to the thousands of men,
women and children from Gagetown.
|
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2286
|
Well, no one is saying that the gov of the day thought that it was dangerous.... i would hope they believed, and truly ,that i was safe...but that does not change the concept of what is fair compensation.. and just as important.. these are veterans, and $ 20,000 will help, but it will in NO WAY help them down the road... they will be saddled with medical expenses, that they did not bring on them selves... and maybe worse, they are left to suffer in pain , with the heavy heart of thinking they are let down by those who are SUPPOSED to be there for them , when they need it....ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
NDP presses Harper to reform veterans’ programs
Thu 1 Nov 2007 | Printer friendly
OTTAWA – NDP Veterans Affairs Critic Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore) joined with veterans today to outline how the government has backpedaled on important issues such as compensation for Agent Orange victims, extending the home care (VIP) program for widows and veterans, and fixing the clawback of SISIP pensions for disabled veterans.
“It is shameful that the Conservatives are failing everyday veterans and their families by not keeping their promises to reform programs and services,” said Stoffer. “They are taking the country in the wrong direction. And with the Liberals rolling over and allowing the Conservatives’ agenda to pass, Canada will be heading in the wrong direction faster.”
“It is outrageous that the government chose to hand out over $6 billion in corporate tax cuts over the next five years while ignoring the opportunity to keep their promises to veterans,” said Stoffer. “Right now, disabled veterans are struggling financially from clawbacks to their disability pensions through SISIP. Many widows and veterans do not have access to home care, and many veterans cannot obtain compensation for Agent Orange because of restrictive criteria.”
Stoffer also berated the Conservative government for ignoring the will of Parliament by not implementing the recommendations of the NDP’s Veterans First Motion, passed in the House of Commons last fall by a majority of members.
“Canada’s veterans were willing to lay down their lives for our country,” said Stoffer. “They sacrificed everything. They expect the government to make good on its promises and fix the unfair policies that hurt veterans financially and deny them the assistance they need for everyday living.”
“I call on Harper’s Conservatives to act on these issues now. It’s time for this government to show support for veterans and their families, even after their uniform comes off.”
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
NOV 01, 2007 Internal Article / Article interne
NDP Veterans Affairs Critic Peter Stoffer Holds a News Conference to Call on Harper's Conservatives to Follow Through on its Promise to Resolve the SISIP Clawback Issue for Disabled Veterans, to Extend the VIP Program to All Widows and Veterans, and to Compensate All Victims of Agent Orange.
TRANSCRIPTION/TRANSCRIPTION
NEWS CONFERENCE/CONFÉRENCE DE PRESSE
Transcription prepared by Media Q Inc. exclusively for Veterans Affairs
Transcription préparée par Media Q Inc. exclusivement pour Anciens Combattants
DATE/DATE: November 1, 2007 11:00 a.m.
LOCATION/ENDROIT: Room 130-S, Centre Block, Parliament Hill, Ottawa
PRINCIPAL(S)/PRINCIPAUX: Peter Stoffer, New Democratic Party Veterans Affairs Critic;
Helen Wrap, Veteran;
Charles McCabe, Canadian Forces Pensioner and Annuitant;
Sean Bruyea;
Louise Richard;
SUBJECT/SUJET: NDP Veterans Affairs Critic Peter Stoffer Holds a News Conference to Call on Harper's Conservatives to Follow Through on its Promise to Resolve the SISIP Clawback Issue for Disabled Veterans, to Extend the VIP Program to All Widows and Veterans, and to Compensate All Victims of Agent Orange. Stoffer Also Addresses the Failure of the Harper Government to Implement the Recommendations of the Veterans First Motion, Despite its Adoption by the Members of the House of Commons.
Peter Stoffer: Good morning, everyone. My name is Peter Stoffer. I'm the Member of Parliament for Sackville--Eastern Shore in Nova Scotia as well as the federal NDP's Veterans Affairs Critic. We're gathered here today in our time of remembrance to reiterate a few points that the Conservative government had made in opposition and what they said they were going to do on behalf of all veterans and their families. And, as we speak, some of those promises have not yet been kept.
I'm joined today by several colleagues today, Mr. Chuck McCabe who's an armed forces pensioner superannuate. I'm joined by Louise Richard who has been here many, many times, Captain Louise Richard, regarding concerns that she will be addressing. Also joined by Mr. Sean Bruyea who as well is no stranger to Parliament Hill on the issues that he's been fighting for for many years. Also joined by Helen Wrap and she'll be discussing concerns regarding widows. And also joined by Mary Buchanan who's also with the Armed Forces Pensioners Association.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're here today as Canada focusses on its veterans and its families and our current armed forces personnel and we wish to reiterate to Prime Minister Harper and to Minister Greg Thompson some of the promises and some of the assurances that they said that they would do.
And I first of all wanted to say on June the 28th of 2005, the prime minister in opposition wrote, and I quote, to a lady named Joyce Carter, a widow of a veteran in St. Peter's, Cape Breton, and it says, and I quote, in writing he said this, "A Conservative government would immediately extend the Veterans Independence Program services to the widows of all Second War and Korean War veterans regardless of when the veteran passed away or how long they'd been receiving the benefit prior to passing away."
They were sworn into cabinet in February of 2006. We've had close to $30 billion in surpluses. When is this government going to act on this promise? As you know, ladies and gentlemen, by the time we all go to bed tonight we will lose 120 veterans and/or their spouses due to old age or sickness. And I'm not sure what the prime minister is waiting for or the Minister Thompson but it is simply regrettable that when you make a written promise to a widow of a veteran that you do not keep that promise.
Other promises were made. Agent Orange scandal in Gagetown, Mr. Harper and Mr. Thompson both said to the civilians and to the victims of Agent Orange spraying and defoliant spraying in the Gagetown area, said, and I quote, "We will compensate and look after all the victims of spraying from 1956 to 1984." That's what they promised they would do. Instead, they announced a package for only those people in 1966 and in '67. That's it. Another broken promise.
Also, Mr. Harper said that the Government of Canada has a moral obligation to honour motions passed by the majority of the House of Commons. Last November, I was proud to introduce the Veterans First motion which clearly asked for five specific principles to be applied for veterans and their families, to help veterans and their families. Number one was to eliminate the discriminatory clause on marriage - some people call the "gold digger clause." But, as Mary Buchanan said, she didn't like that term so it is the marriage discrimination clause of when a veteran after 60 remarries and then passes away his second spouse or her second spouse is entitled to no pension benefits whatsoever. It is simply unconscionable that this old 1901 American Civil War sort of doctrine is still on the books today. We've asked it to be removed.
The other one of course is the amount of money a pensioner can leave his or her widower or widow when they pass on. We've asked for 66 but we'd ask for more than the 50 percent that is there now because the pensions of some of our current service personnel that served in the '40s, '50s and '60s are not all that high. And when they pass on, to leave only 50 percent of that to the spouse puts many of them into direct poverty and it's simply unacceptable that we would do this.
The other concern we have of course the ending of the clawback of their pensions at age 65 or we call the reduction of their superannuity and plus on their medical releases as well.
The other one we've asked for and this, two DND ombudsmen, André Marin and Yves Côté, have both unanimously, both said that the SISIP clawback to injured soldiers - and some of them I have with me here now - has to stop. And it has to be fixed. Gordon O'Connor, the former Minister of Defence said, and I quote, in a question that I directly asked him in the House of Commons, "The Liberals did not get the job done. We will get the job done when it comes to SISIP changes." It's still not done.
And these are the elements we put in our Veterans First motion which was passed by the majority of parliamentarians in the House of Commons almost a year ago from today. Mr. Harper said there's a moral obligation to honour those motions that are respected by the majority of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, today, the Conservatives on their very first whipped vote that they had, they were whipped into it, voted against that motion even though certain elements of the motion Conservatives have private member's bills on. And they had to stand up and vote against their own initiative because Mr. Harper told them to.
This is unacceptable. If you can deliberately mislead veterans and widows of veterans, then where else can you go? And the word of the prime minister is the word of all politicians. And when the prime minister makes a written promise and a vow and when the Minister of Veterans Affairs says they are going to do the following, then it is up to us in opposition to gently remind them one more time that this is what you promised our widows, our veterans and their families. And you've got the fiscal capacity to do it.
Shamefully, in two budgets and two economic statements not a word to help some of the people behind me and the thousands and thousands of others across the country. I have no clue of what the government is waiting for.
One more promise and I'll turn it over to Helen Wrap. One of the biggest problems we have in the Department of Veterans Affairs is the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. This group of people are almost untouchable and we're hoping that the new veterans' ombudsman will be able to break that rock and scatter it across the country and fix it once and for all. And in fact the Conservatives know how bad it was because in their election campaign they made this promise to all of Canada. "The Conservative Party would immediately disband the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and replace the membership with qualified medical and military members who are capable of adjudicating appeals on an informed basis rather than a political basis."
They knew and I knew that many of those decisions are based on political decisions because many of the appointees to VRAB are political decisions. And friends of the government get these positions. "That VRAB would be housed in offices separate from the VA offices and be in locations set in the Veterans Affairs Regional Offices in major centres across the country." That was a promise the Conservatives made in the last campaign. VRAB is still there and it's still denying tremendous amounts of veterans from benefits.
I have a letter on my desk from a gentleman in Saskatoon that was denied $200 for a pair of orthotics. I have another gentleman in Dartmouth, many of them are denied hearing loss compensation or hearing aids. One gentleman said he'd loved to have gone to the 90th anniversary of Vimy but he wouldn't go because he couldn't hear it. All he asked for was a hearing aid.
And I remind Minister Thompson what he said in the House and what he says at almost every single event that veterans are at, when it comes to a veteran or a family member calling up VBA the benefit of the doubt must always, always go to the veteran. Then why are so many turned down?
And here's my final point. In my view it's quite simple. These veterans and people who serve our country, when they sign up, they sign up and they have the ultimate -- or sorry, the unlimited liability which means in order for us to have a good night's sleep and be safe in our communities and our country, they are willing to put their lives on the line for us. We in government and in opposition have a moral obligation of the ultimate responsibility to ensure that when we say "Support the Troops" it's not just a fancy slogan we use on Red Fridays but it means supporting the troops long after the uniform comes off.
So the only question the Government of Canada should ask a veteran or a family member when they call is "Did you serve?" If the answer is yes, then "How can we help you?"
And I hope and I pray that this government will once and finally listen - listen to the voices out there, listen to the House of Commons. You have the fiscal capacity to get it done. You always say the Conservatives will get the job done. Well, so far you haven't done it. And I certainly don't want to have to come back here next year and repeat this again because 120 veterans and their spouses will have been gone by the end of the day. How many more have to leave before they receive any benefits from this government?
At this time I'd like to turn it over to Madam Helen Wrap who herself is a veteran to explain her concerns and what is called the discriminatory marriage clause. Helen, please.
Helen Wrap: Thank you, Peter. Well, Peter has covered it very well. FSNA Act was formed by our Canadian militia back in 1901 and they looked to the States to see that young women down there were marrying aged veterans from the Civil War of 1865 so our government decided that they would make 60 the age that a veteran pensioner would be cut off a survivor's benefit to protect them from sweet young things. And so that's where this 60 comes from.
Now it was amended back -- Mr. Bill Graham amended it back in the early 2000 but he amended it so that the pensioner could pay for an annuity for his spouse, a survivor's benefit. Well, with the meagre pension that the veterans from the Second World War and Korea get, that was just not feasible. So there was no pension for the survivors. You just can't put money aside when you get a meagre pension of say $1,200 a month for your spouse. Now that's okay if you're a brigadier-general and above but the average soldier, sailor or airman they didn't attain that rank.
And, as I said, it was amended and we're hoping that the government will amend and do away with Section 31, the "gold digger clause." And Mrs. Buchanan is a widow of a pensioner and she doesn't receive a cent of his pension because they married after 60 and she came down to be with us today.
Now Cliff Chatterton of the NCBA has sponsored us and written letters for us. The Honourable Greg Thompson has published our letter and sent a letter to Mr. O'Connor saying please look into this situation and see what can be done. Well, I've had umpteen letters back from National Defence, from all the different people that I've talked except Peter saying we're studying this situation and it's a very complex situation. They've told me that for 15 years. So it's about time we had some action and we do have some money for it. And we're hoping that this year it's going to be a year that the Harper government will come through for us because there's approximately a thousand widows that we're looking at. Now that's not a lot and, as Peter says, they're dying off and the widows I'm talking about are in their 70s, 80s and they've looked after their husbands in their golden years. So we really need to help them.
Thank you. Thank you, Peter.
Peter Stoffer: Thanks, Helen. I'd now like to ask Mr. Charles McCabe to say a few words, please.
Charles McCabe: Thank you, Peter. I'm here representing the members, pensioners and annuitants of Canadian Armed Forces. And one of their major concerns is the welfare of their survivor. Right now, the regulations, as member Stoffer has indicated, limit the survivor benefits to 50 percent of the pension. That has -- many other programs allow more than that. We would like to see it increase to at least 60 percent which is what many of them get and even more than that in many cases because, as Helen has indicated, the pensions of many of the people we are representing are paltry in comparison to many of the other pensions that others are entitled. So that is one of our major concerns, the survivor benefits of the armed forces pensioners.
I also might mention that we are involved in a lawsuit with the federal government dating back to 1998 when the then Finance Minister Paul Martin confiscated some $30 billion in surplus pension benefits, most of which consisted of the contributions that we as members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the public service of course had over contributed to the program and we are now waiting decisions from the Ontario Court on just where that legal -- where that legal basis of this is.
Thank you.
Peter Stoffer: Thank you, Chuck. I'd now like to invite Captain Louise Richard and Captain Sean Bruyea to say a few words regarding a concern that they have raised on many, many occasions on the SISIP deduction.
Sean Bruyea: We've shown up, Louise and I, on the Hill many times in the past and most recently we've talked about the 4,000 soldiers and their families that have pain and suffering payments deducted from their disability policy that's administered by the Canadian Forces. As Mr. Stoffer indicated, that the previous Minister of National Defence promised that he would resolve this issue.
Now, you know, when Louise and I come up here on the Hill, you know, I think I can speak for Louise, it never ceases to amaze me, to impress me the importance of what the Parliament Buildings mean, especially with a day like today with the blue sky and the flag on the backdrop. That is the reason why we were willing to lay down our lives. That is the reason why soldiers in Afghanistan today are willing to lay down their lives. And when a democratic institution and committee members unanimously vote to stop these unfair deductions, and politicians come back and when they're in government say it can't be done because it's too difficult and too complex, tell that to the soldiers in Afghanistan that are fighting much more difficult battles. Tell that to the soldiers of the valleys, Liri Valley in Italy. Tell that to the World War I veterans when they were alive because it's not an excuse. We're fighting for politicians so that they can keep their jobs. It's up to politicians to fight bureaucrats so that veterans are taken care of.
Louise Richards: I just want to reiterate what my colleague Sean said and thank you, Peter Stoffer, and the NDP Party for being so pro-veterans on all our difficult and unlawful and unfair issues. We have a new government. We have a great, great budget that can deal with these pending issues that have been dated for so, so many years. Sean and I have been here year after year after year after year for over a decade now. And we would like to see these issues resolved as Helen and all of us before we either die of old age or illness. And we want to see these promises kept and action taken once and for all.
And thank you, Peter, for this.
Sean Bruyea: Just one more comment. Today we stand beside Peter Stoffer and the New Democratic Party. In the past we've stood beside the Conservatives and we will proudly stand beside Minister MacKay and Minister Thompson should they decide to actually enact the will of Parliament, the will of committees and the will of the Canadian public.
Thank you.
Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Sean and Louise. I just want to reiterate one last time the auditor general just came out with a report the other day, very serious reservations regarding the care that some of our returning soldiers receive and their families receive when it comes to mental health capacity. There's not enough ability for people to be trained to identify post-traumatic stress disorder. And it is unconscionable that we would send the greatest of Canadians over to the worst place on the planet and when they suffer either a mental or physical disability and they're seeking assistance, that the government puts up these roadblocks and says well, we don't have it figured out yet. We're still working on it.
One of the concerns that I find absolutely disgraceful at the OSA centres is when a person suffers from a mental disability or post-traumatic stress disorder - and we know that PTSD strikes you either immediately or down the road but eventually it'll hit you - that they only pay for the first 10 sessions of help. And then that's it. Any psychologist out there will tell you that people who suffer from PTSD it's a lifelong concern. It just doesn't go away like that. To be able to deal with it on your day to day lives and have the support of your family and friends is quite incredible. But some of them don't have that support. And they suffer in silence. And the reality is they were willing to go overseas to defend democracy, peace and freedom. We can't say to them when you have over $30 billion in surpluses we'll only pay for the first 10 sessions. That's if you get in line, first of all. There's quite a waiting list to get in. And then we cut you off after that.
And I remind the government that the greatest friend that the government has when it comes to the treatment and care of veterans and our current military personnel is the spouse and the family. And we need to understand that they also require assistance as well. And it's time that the government stood up today and announced that they would honour these requests - very, very inexpensive requests, by the way, if you're looking at the dollar figure. But these are people that when they signed on the bottom line there was no form on the line when they registered to sign up for the military "how much money do you make?" That's not on the application form. "Are you healthy? Can you go? Great, you're gone." But when you come back and you look for assistance, one of the first questions DVA asks you is "What's your income?" And if you make a little bit more than the minimum you don't get any help. Only in Canada do we do this. And it's got to stop and it stops today.
Thank you very much. And at this time we'll take any questions that any of you may have. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. And have a nice day. And God bless our veterans.
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/front/article/115962Daily Gleaner Tories broke promises to spraying victims -- NDP By KATE WRIGHT wright.kate@dailygleaner.com Published Friday November 2nd, 2007 Appeared on page A5 OTTAWA - The NDP veterans affairs critic is urging the federal government to come clean on its promise to compensate all victims of spraying of Agent Orange at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown. On Thursday, Sackville MP Peter Stoffer ran through a laundry list of promises made to victims of herbicide spraying by the federal Tories, who were then sitting on the Opposition benches. In 2004, Greg Thompson, now veterans affairs minister, asked the then- Liberal government to conduct a public inquiry into the spraying at the base. The majority of the base falls in Thompson's New Brunswick Southwest riding. "I said that the public inquiry should have the authority to make recommendations for compensation of all personas affected, both civilian and military," Thompson told the Commons in September 2005. "We are asking the Government of Canada to compensate those victims, to come up with a plan that will work, and to have a public inquiry so that Canadians can see exactly what the Government of Canada should do, could do and will do." On Sept. 12, the federal government offered a one-time, $20,000 payment for people exposed to Agent Orange that was sprayed at CFB Gagetown by the U.S. military in 1966 and 1967. The money didn't satisfy thousands of former soldiers and civilians who say they were affected by a broad range of defoliants used at the base throughout the 1950s, '60s and '70s. "It's another broken promise," Stoffer said. "I don't have a clue what they're waiting for. You've got the fiscal capacity. It's shameful, in two budgets and two fiscal updates, there's not a word to help these people." When deciding how to compensate veterans, the federal government referenced an American medical report that studied Korean and Vietnam War veterans. Laurie Robichaud, a veteran who served at the base from 1960 to 1968, said the federal government has excluded a disease caused by herbicide spraying from their compensation package. He said veterans such as himself who were diagnosed with chronic obstruction pulmonary disease are being discriminated against and wonders why the government chose to ignore the disease when compiling a compensation package. "I asked Greg Thompson directly and he didn't have an answer," he said. "They're whittling back the list, eliminating people from compensation. That's the way they're playing the game." Robichaud is in the process of gathering a petition to present to Thompson to include more veterans in the compensation package. In an e-mail statement, Thompson said people affected by the spraying are pleased with the package being offered. "I just held information sessions in Oromocto, Gagetown and Hoyt on the weekend and the people there are very happy that our government has acted where previous governments refused to. They know the ex- gratia payments already going out in the mail are fair and compassionate," he wrote. Thompson said Stoffer and the NDP "have no credibility on these issues" and the party has voted against funding for veterans in the past, to the tune of $523 million. Agent Orange was tested at CFB Gagetown for four days in 1966 and for three days in 1967 by the U.S. military. The Agent Orange Association of Canada said documents obtained from the Department of National Defence, through the Access to Information Act, show chemical defoliants containing harmful substances such as dioxin were used at CFB Gagetown from 1956 to 1984.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
http://google-sina.com/2007/11/07/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-sue-for-pesticide-harm/Supreme Court affirms right to sue for pesticide harm November 7 2007 In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court today upheld the rights of citizens to sue for damages caused by pesticides, after Dow Chemical Company and the Bush Administration argued that the chemical industry should be shielded from such litigation. "This decision affirms a moral value that life is more precious than chemical company profits," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental group. The Bush Administration filed a brief in support of Dow Chemical, arguing against the rights of citizens who are poisoned or damaged from pesticide use. The case, Bates et al v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, involves Texas peanut farmers, who argued that the Dow herbicide Strongarm (diclosulam) ruined their crops, but were prevented from suing after Dow successfully argued in a lower District court that registration of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) insulates it from citizen suits, or preempts litigation. The Bush administration weighed in the case on the side of Dow, officially reversing the position of the Clinton administration (see Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Service, Bayer Corp, et al.). The Justice Department brief filed before the high court in late November, 2004 was designed to protect pesticide manufacturers when their products cause harm. Advocates cite that this position is contradictory to the administration's public support of states' rights. The court decision reads, "The long history of tort litigation against manufacturers of poisonous substances adds force to the presumption against pre-emption, for Congress surely would have expressed its intention more clearly if it had meant to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation." The decision continues, "Moreover, this history emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in distributing inherently dangerous items. Private remedies that enforce federal misbranding requirements would seem to aid, rather than hinder, the function of FIFRA [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act]. The Court criticized Dow and the Bush Administration's attempts to undermine public protection, stating, "Dow and the United States exaggerate the disruptive effects of using common-law suits to enforce the prohibition on misbranding. FIFRA has prohibited inaccurate representations and inadequate warnings since its enactment in 1947, while tort suits alleging failure-to- warn claims were common well before that date and continued beyond the 1972 amendments. We have been pointed to no evidence that such tort suits led to a `crazy-quilt' of FIFRA standards or otherwise created any real hardship for manufacturers or for EPA." According to Beyond Pesticides, the court decision is extremely important because: (i) "Pesticides are registered by the Environmental Protection Agency under a risk assessment review process that implicitly does not consider all aspects of potential harm," (ii) "The potential for court review of cases in which people are harmed creates a strong incentive for the development of safer products," and (iii) "The same companies or their trade associations, including Dow Chemical Company, that have successfully lobbied for weak national laws and standards do not want people who are harmed as a result to seek redress." Beyond Pesticides joined an amicus brief in the case with Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Farmworker Justice Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. See decision at: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27apr20050800/www.supremecourtus.gov/o pinions/04pdf/03-388.pdf http://www.beyondpesticides.org/
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
Those I remember on Remembrance Day.
My father at 19 was in Korea, he fought for his Country not unlike
the young soldiers of today in Afganistan.
He does not speak of what he went through or of the horrors he had
seen.
He gave 25 years of his life to the Canadian military.
He gave his best.
I had a uncle, Lucien, he also was a Korean War Veteran.
Canada never called it a War in his life time, it was known as
a "Police Action".
He also remained with the army after Korea, serving Canada.
As a young child I adopted "Grandparents", they never could have
children of their own.
It's a price paid by a World War Two Veteran, wounded fighting for
Canada.
He served his country Canada for 30 years.
No one understood more the sacrifices made by the fallen of these
wars than the ones that made it home.
The Veterans.
So many that came to live and work at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.
I will include CFB Gagetown, NB., in my Remembrance Day.
It is a place and time that we all came together.
What a honour to have been with such people.
I can still picture them all, the friends, the laughter,such happy
times.
Neighbours living in peace, young couples filled with hope and dreams.
Us kids, all so FREE
CFB Gagetown was more, it's where Canadians were poisoned.
Those Canadian Soldiers,civilians men, women and children.
Our Government sprayed their poisons 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and Tordon 101
with picloram starting in 1956.
It's where the Canadian Government invited the US military, a allie
to test their toxic chemicals.
It was the beginning of deceit, where politicians lied and where
cover-ups started.
After fifty years it remains a open wound, unable to heal for it's
people and the land.
I myself see it as a war and I have lost many.
I will remember the died of Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, New
Brunswick this Remembrance Day.
Nancy Belfry
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
Nov 7, 2007 10:06:00 AM MST
First cheques in the mail for Agent Orange compensation program (Agent-Orange-Payments)
FREDERICTON _ The first cheques have been mailed out and hundreds of applications are pending as Ottawa‘s Agent Orange compensation program kicks into gear.
An official with Veterans Affairs says that, so far, the federal department has received 508 applications for the one-time, $20,000 payment for people whose health may have been harmed by Agent Orange spray programs at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in the 1960s.
Janice Summerby says 152 applications have been approved and the cheques sent out. She says only seven were rejected because the applicants did not meet eligibility criteria.
Ottawa believes as many as 4,500 people _ veterans and civilians _ may qualify for compensation. To date, Veterans Affairs has distributed 3,235 applications.
To qualify, people must have an illness associated with Agent Orange exposure and have worked at, trained at or been posted at Gagetown, or lived within five kilometres of the base, in 1966 or 1967, when the herbicides were tested.
*************************************************************
You know that if there are only 4,500 people eligible for this compensation package, then the 3,235 already mailed out requests, would meant that there are at this time more then 75% causalities form the 7 days of US, 2 1/2 barrels of contaminated chemicals.
This aught to tell us something. How many more are there from the Canadian 6,500 barrels and 2 million pounds of equally contaminated chemicals regardless under what name they were when sprayed?
Cpl. Kenneth H. Young CD (Ret'd).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
US health association call for compensation to AO victims
10:34' 09/11/2007 (GMT+7)
VietNamNet Bridge – The American Public Health Association (APHA) has
adopted a statement calling for the US Government & Chemical
Companies' compensation to Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange.
On November 6, 2007, APHA, the largest public health association in
the world, adopted a policy statement calling for US government and
the chemical companies involved to provide specified compensation to
Vietnamese harmed by the spraying of dioxin laden Agent Orange during
the war more than 30 years ago.
The APHA called for compensation to cover medical care and services,
development of community support organisations, chronic care and
medical equipment. It further asked the US government and involved
chemical companies to be responsible to remediate those areas in
Vietnam which still contain high levels of dioxin (the "hot spots").
Mindful of the fact that millions of American veterans of the Viet
Nam War and their families still suffer the effects of Agent Orange,
the APHA policy statement also recommended that the US government
continue to address the enduring psychological and physical health
effects of Agent Orange on American veterans.
Dr. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Phuong, a leading clinician/researcher from Viet
Nam and the Chairwoman of the Obstetrics & Gynecology Department of
the Medical University of Ho Chi Minh City, said "The APHA policy
statement will help to accelerate the present cooperation between the
US and Viet Nam on remediating the environmental affects of Agent
Orange. Three million Vietnamese people are now suffering painful and
debilitating effects of Agent Orange and this policy statement will
continue to easing their suffering and improve the public health."
Meanwhile, Susan Schnall, a public health expert with the Viet Nam
Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign and a Vietnam era Navy
veteran, observed that many American veterans will welcome the APHA's
statement because they experience firsthand the terrible consequences
of exposure to Agent Orange.
"As a health professional who has witnessed the sufferings of both
American soldiers and Vietnamese women and children, I believe that
the APHA is doing the right thing," she said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Young Ken
Veteran 300+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 399
Fort York - 2 RCR 67-70 * 1 RCR Recce 70-74
|
Harper must follow through on promise to veterans
Fri 9 Nov 2007 | Printer friendly
On Remembrance Day, Canadians from coast to coast to coast will
honour the service and sacrifices of our veterans and currently
serving Canadian Forces personnel. Alongside living heroes, we will
remember the more than 100,000 men and women who made the ultimate
sacrifice in the Boer War, in World Wars I and II, in Korea, on
peacekeeping missions, and in places like southern Afghanistan.
But words alone cannot convey the depth of gratitude we have for the
men and women who have served our country. Our actions must also show
how we deeply appreciate their contributions and efforts. That means
that our government's programs and services must treat our veterans
and their families with dignity, fairness, and security.
That's why the NDP has pressed the Conservative government to
implement key reforms for programs and services for veterans and
their families. The Harper Conservatives promised to fix the clawback
of SISIP pensions for disabled veterans, to provide compensation for
all victims of Agent Orange and other defoliants, and to extend the
home care program (VIP) for widows and veterans. Shamefully, they
have failed veterans and their families by not keeping any of these
promises.
The list of injustices continues. Veterans are fighting for an end to
the unjust clawback to their service pensions, and the Auditor
General recently criticized the government for the long delays in
assisting soldiers and their families struggling with post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD).
The Conservative government has also ignored the will of Parliament
by not implementing the recommendations of the NDP's Veterans First
Motion, passed in the House of Commons last fall by a majority of
members. The motion asks that our government support our veterans and
their families' right to the end of their lives.
Veterans and their families have been deliberately misled by this | | | |
Logged
