| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. |
 Author
|
Topic: 'Stop ripping off disabled vets,' (Read 1056 times)
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3076
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
What are wounds worth?
Badly injured soldiers get too little: MPs
By KATHLEEN HARRIS, NATIONAL BUREAU CHIEF
Click here to find out more!
OTTAWA -- Soldiers who lose limbs, sight or hearing to roadside blasts or training accidents deserve more cash, say MPs who are demanding changes to the military amputee and injury compensation program.
They also want to see parity in compension for part-time reservists.
Under 2003 guidelines, most Canadian Forces members are eligible for a maximum lump-sum payment of $250,000 if they lose both feet or hands or suffer another permanent major injury. The figure is $125,000 for the loss of a single body part.
Some classes of reservists on service of less than six months see their claims capped at $100,000 and are eligible for only half or, in some cases, one quarter of the dismemberment claims for regular forces.
NDP MP Peter Stoffer slammed the compensation figures as too low, and said disparity between fulltime troops and reservists amounts to outrageous discrimination.
'WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?'
"I don't care if it's one mi -nute or one year, the minute someone puts that uniform on and they serve their country, whether it's domestic or overseas, if something happens to them they should be treated equally," Stoffer said.
"Whether you're losing your foot in Gagetown or Wainright or Afghanistan, what's the difference to the person who lost the foot?"
According to figures obtained by Sun Media, as of the end of 2007 the department of national defence had paid out $2.6 million for 17 dismemberment claims.
That's up from $1.1 million paid out from the beginning of the Afghanistan mission in 2002 to the end of 2006.
Andre Bouchard, president of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, which administers financial programs for Canadian troops, said a proposal to standardize compensation so that everyone qualifies for the maximum amounts is before Treasury Board, but could not say if or when it would be approved.
While other countries such as Britain have recently increased compensation, Bouchard said there is no current consideration to boost payments in Canada.
"Right now there's nothing in the works to change the maximum amounts, but there is something in the works to make sure everyone will qualify for a total of $250,000," he said.
The Afghan campaign, up to the end of 2007, has seen 395 non-battle injuries, 280 wounded in action, 66 killed in action and eight other deaths.
DND, for reasons of "operational security," does not release detailed information on how many injuries resulted in dismemberment.
But one Forces member said the level of compensation is a grave concern for those who risk losing limbs from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and other blasts.
DND and veterans affairs provide pensions and programs to help amputees retain a job with the Forces or in the federal civil service, many say it's still not enough.
'GETTING OFF CHEAP'
"Is the government taking care of them and their quality of life for the rest of their life? I don't think so," Stoffer said. "We broke them. Not the military, but the foreign policy broke them. What do they when they're 40, or 60, without both their legs? At the end of the day, the government's getting off cheap."
Liberal MP Dan Mc Teague said Canadians should be "aghast" to learn the level of compensation for soldiers with debilitating wounds.
Since many young soldiers don't have enough years of service for a significant pension, he said a life-long monthly payment should complement any lump sum for amputees and other seriously wounded.
"The country basically cuts them a cheque, gives them a pat on the back and a salute goodbye," he said.
McTeague said rules adopted in 2003 didn't project the high number and severity of injuries to Canadian troops in Kandahar.
And after recently voting to extend the mission to 2011, he believes Parliament has a duty to ensure every amputee soldier is cared for financially for the rest of his or her life.
"To me this looks like a blatant ripoff of people who have selflessly given of themselves for what Parliament has asked them to do. It's Parliament's obligation now to stand up for the people who are standing up for us," he said.
McTeague also slammed the inequality in compensation for regular force and some reservists as "appalling discrimination."
|
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blais
SSM (NATO Bar), CPSM, UN-Cyp, CD
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3076
A ROYAL CANADIAN "NEVER PASSES A FAULT"
|
CANADIAN FORCES VETS ANGRY OVER TREATMENT OF WIDOWS I got this email before I decided to post my request on the blog for suggestions for questions for Gen. Hillier for an upcoming interview....but here is something from retired Major Reg Warkentin that might be of interest to those CF members approaching retirement or who are retired. “Perhaps you can ask Peter MacKay and/or General Hillier why DND is dragging its feet in amending Sec 31(1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act - you know the one that prohibits widows of CF Veterans from drawing a portion of their deceased Veteran husband's pension because she married him after his 60th birthday. I have been writing the past PMs, Defence Ministers during the past 14 or so years with no progress. Peter MacKay does not even answer my letters - I don't email him. This Section of the CFSA has been in effect since the 1901 original Militia Pension Act because of a belief that women who married Veterans after their 60th birthday were "gold diggers" At present there are about 21,000 widows who DO draw a portion of their deceased Veteran husband's pension - an average of $875 per month, but there are about 800 widows that draw nothing of their deceased Veteran husband's pension. Surely it's time that ALL widows were treated the same." The whole story, according to the major, is at: http://www.cvast.com/ UPDATE: I just received this email from Scott Harris, legislative assistant to NDP defence critic Dawn Black: On November 7th 2006 a majority of the House voted for this: That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately take the following steps to assist members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families: 1. amend Section 31 (1) of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act so that second spouses of CF members and veterans have access to pension rights upon the death of the Canadian Forces member or veteran; 2. extend the Veterans Independence Program (VIP) to all widows of all veterans, regardless of the time of death of the veteran and regardless of whether the veteran was in receipt of VIP services prior to his or her death; 3. increase the Survivor’s Pension Amount upon death of Canadian Forces retiree to 66% from the current amount of 50%; 4. eliminate the unfair reduction of Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) long term disability benefits from medically released members of the Canadian Forces; and 5. eliminate the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled CF members. The Conservatives still haven't acted on it. |
1RCR 1977-79 Depot (Italy PL), B Coy, Mortars, Pioneers, D Coy (CFB London)
3RCR 1979-82 M Coy, Pipes & Drums, Sigs, Mortars. (CFB Baden-Soellingen)
1RCR 1982-88 Mortars. Dukes, Cyprus-Welfare NCO 84-85, Injured, WO&Sgts Mess, (CFB London)
1988-92 Med-remuster to HELL/ 35 DU, CFB Baden
1992 Medical release. God Bless you all!
Pro Patria
|
|
|
ranrad
Ron [Andy] Andrews
Ultimate 2000+ Member
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 2012
|
This has been a real sore spot for many vets and vets widows for so long.. well, isnt it about time that the politicos found time to fix this?? And who knows of a recent Supreme court decision which determined that peoples , within vet aff administration had been using " Ministerial Decisions" for about 25 yrs , to deny benefits to actually eligible vets??? How is a vet to know if their claims were denied due to a Ministerial Decision?? The leteter of the law in Canada is that the " veteran must be given the benefit of any doubt in a claim".. Why is that? Because in the military environment where soldiers get injured , wounded , sick.. there is always some doubt of actual events... it is the nature of the job , the task.. most often there is much confusion, and what wirnesses see, hear , may not be in fact, fact... but who is to say otherwise..it is often quirks of our minds...terror and panic cause these quirks.. ergo, there is that clause to protect the injured vet....so , what / how does one find out whether their claim was in fact denied by a ministerial decision??? i imagine there are many vets out there wondering about this too. Anyone got any answers? Is Vet Aff going to come clean on there own , and review all claims for that period that were denied??? Thsese are answers all vets and future vets bnedd today as well....ranrad
|
RCAF,CAF, converted RCR?,1RCR 74-77 CD: SSM (Nato);CPSM,;UN-Cyp.; UN- Golan
|
|
|
|
|
? ranrad
Logged
