|
|
PERIODICAL - February 2006 |
|
Issue No: 20064 |
VVi is for you, all veterans, regardless of whether you belong to a veteran organization or not. VVi is a distribution centre, a conduit for making sure that the information you need as a veteran is there for you in a timely fashion. Our aim is to provide a forum for all Canadian veterans, serving members and their families to have access to information pertaining to veteran rights. VVi is an independent
site, not associated with any governmental department, agency or veteran organization. VeteranVoice.info is maintained by independent contributions.
Early last year the Government proclaimed 2005 as the Year of the Veteran. The parades, commemorative services, opportunities for speeches, et al provided politicians with many photo opportunities. Veterans feeling comfortable being recognized went to sleep. While we slept, we may have put some of our benefits and entitlements at risk. As we slept, Veteran’s Affairs Canada [VAC] staff was busy working on new veterans’ legislation. We know the new legislation as Bill C-45, The New Veteran’s Charter. Many question why we need the new Charter. Others ask to whom does it apply? Others asked about implementation and the costs involved. Many issues drove the need for the new Charter. The fact that the last major revision of veterans’ legislation had been done in 1954 suggests that much of existing veterans’ legislation was out of step with society. Another issue was the rising cost of caring for veterans. VAC financial projections suggest that the new Charter’s approach to veterans care, once fully in place, will cost less than the current approaches. Government could then apply the savings from veterans’ programmes to other better organized pressure groups. Lastly, veterans were increasingly unhappy with their poor care by VAC. Several years ago the Canadian Forces and VAC created an inter a departmental committee to review veterans’ legislation. Veterans’ organizations such as The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association [CPVA], Canadian United Nation Peacekeepers Veterans Association, Gulf War Veterans Associations, and several others were active in the review. Over time a well-established consultation process between VAC and the veteran’s organizations developed. Work began on revising current veterans’ legislation while most veterans slept. Early in 2005 the Minister of VAC and her senior staff met with veteran’s organizations in Toronto. They agreed on a framework structure and the principles of the new Charter. What with the need for Cabinet confidentiality with evolving legislation the veterans at the meeting agreed verbally not to divulge their knowledge to their membership. In April, the veteran’s organizations learned that what they had agreed too in January had undergone major changes. They also learned that VAC was bringing forward the legislative process. The key reason for the change in timings being the increasing vulnerability of the Government. In early May, the Opposition Parties agreed to the Government’s proposals to approve the new Charter. In mid May the Government tabled the new Charter in the House of Commons. The Bill received three readings in a single sitting. Most veterans still slept soundly but some sentries began raising the alarm. The Bill went to the Senate where it received first reading. By now the veteran’s organizations who had fully expected the Bill to go though the normal legislative processes were crying foul. Just before the Bill went to final reading we arranged a hearing before the Senate National Finance Committee. At the Senate hearings two veterans made articulate presentations on the Charter. In doing so they raised several concerns that the Senators seized upon. They then pressed the Minister of VAC for clarification and continued consultation with veteran’s representatives. The veteran’s representatives while supporting the Charter also expressed many reservations with its content. The Charter became law the following day. The Senate hearings achieved several things not the least of which was awaking a few veterans. The Minister’s agreement to pursue the ongoing consultation process with the veteran’s representatives was very important. Most veterans were unaware of these activities and continue to sleep comfortably. The Charter became law with minimal media attention. However, increasingly veterans were becoming alarmed at what occurred while they were asleep. A flurry of well intended but uncoordinated activity began within the veterans’ community. Criticism was directed both at VAC and what veterans perceived as VAC’s fellow travelers, the veteran’s organizations involved with the Charter. The criticism focused on how the veteran’s organizations had been out manoeuvred by VAC and in the process had failed to protect veterans’ benefits and entitlements. We deserved a fair amount of this criticism. What was over looked by the critics, however, was that Cabinet confidentiality bound the veteran’s representatives. Some said that the political agents in Ottawa took advantage of our collective integrity. That may be so but many of us still feel that our word is our bond. We acted honourably. Despite the last minute activity and criticism of the new Charter the veteran’s efforts were largely unorganized and most importantly were too late to have any effect. The Charter is law. Largely, unaware of the Charter and its potential to affect their future most veterans remained soundly asleep. In late June the veteran’s consultation process with VAC began afresh with the issue being the development of the regulations to implement the statues of the new Charter. They held a plenary session in Ottawa to outline the development process and how the veteran’s organizations would be involved. The intention of the consultation process was to gain veterans’ input into the regulations that VAC must develop to implement the Charter. The Charter while law is also a complex legal document. As such, the Charter’s statues need expanding into regulations. Once VAC has gained approval for the regulations they can, in turn, then develop the policies that everyone will use to implement the Charter. All things being equal the new Charter will come into effect 1 April 2006. It is in the formulation of regulations that the old expression, "the devil is in the details," truly applies. We, in CPVA, had a long list of concerns and reservations with the Charter. When we heard how VAC planned to conduct the consultation process our concerns were compounded. We could not see how we could address our many concerns, and those of our colleagues, given the timetable VAC proposed. It turned out that the timetable was simply too tight for VAC itself so we had more time to formulate and present our concerns. Meanwhile, most veterans continue to sleep comfortably. Between the end of June and late November we had a series of bilateral sessions and another plenary session. When we met in bilateral sessions, it was with Ken Miller and Louise Campbell of VAC. Before each session they sent us Vision Papers and draft regulations prepared by the VAC drafting teams. In CPVA, we had our own Charter Implementation Committee set up. Our Committee comprises serving and retired members and advisors. The Committee had members across the country. We also have the Law Faculty of the University of Victoria available to help us with legal issues. Our member’s experience ranged from Korea to current operations including two serving members who are in the throes of being released on medical grounds. We distributed the VAC working papers to our Committee members and sought their comments, criticism, and recommendations on the content. We collected and collated their responses. In turn we negotiated our common concerns with VAC Team. The VAC Team’s approach was open with discussion flowing freely. Many of our observations later appeared in revised documents. The openness of the process and response encouraged us to seek more changes.
I believe it fair to say that despite our initial reservations with the consultation process it worked better
than most ever expected. Comparing our list of concerns from June and what VAC tabled in late November gave us all grounds for confidence and considerable satisfaction too.
That is not to say that we achieved everything we sought nor does it mean that the process was perfect. It was not a perfect system but then in real life what is perfect? We were
actively involved and able to contribute to the development process and that is what is important. Could the process involved more veterans and been more open definitely yes? That being
said how does VAC consult with approximately seven hundred thousand veterans given the time
imposed by Parliament? VAC choose to rely on the six veterans’ organization it has been working with over the last five years. Some will
question this decision on VAC’s part but they made it. Meanwhile most veterans remain asleep totally unaware of what is happening around them.
We now await the gazetting of the Charter’s regulations. This activity should occur over the next fortnight
and for thirty days after that the public can criticize and make recommendation to change the regulations. For our part when we get the draft
regulations, we will circulate them to our Committee members seeking their advice. Based on their input and our own observations we will make representation to VAC as warranted.
In all likelihood the new Charter will come into effect on 1 April.2006. The Charter will have known
weaknesses and there undoubtedly will be transition difficulties too. These issues will in time generate
the need for changes to the Charter but until we see the Charter at work we will not know what works or what does not. Rest assured veterans
and those still serving too seeking their rightful benefits and entitlements will challenge the new Charter.
In this long process most veterans have been comfortably asleep. Completely
unaware of what is happening to veterans’ care, benefits, and administration. If veterans
awake now what can they do to find out about the new Charter? To start they can follow VVi and they can also read carefully Salute the VAC mini
newspaper. They can ask the veteran’s organizations such as CPVA for information. They can check the VAC website for more information. Having thus gained an insight into the Charter and
how it may apply to them veterans might ask these questions of themselves.
How is it that a major change of veteran’s administration in Canada can take place without veterans being
involved or even aware of the changes?
Who represents the approximately seven hundred thousand veterans in Canada?
Why do Canada’s veterans not have an ombudsman?
And the last question is an obvious one if you are a concerned veteran what are you going to do about it? Sleep well and while you do rest assured others will try to take advantage of the situation. It has worked before why not again? Joseph E. L. Gollner CPVA
Military/RCMP Pensioners Against Benefit Reduction at age 65
Campaign Presentation
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/military.pension By John Labelle Foreword. This injustice levelled at our Veterans some day will affect your Children, Grand Children, and/or member of your family. Someone will volunteer to serve our Country in the Military/RCMP Forces. It should be a concern of all Canadians!
History.
Encouraged by many Veterans, on the 21 February 2005, I wrote a letter to Mr. Peter Stoffer, MP Sackville-Eastern Shore seeking his support towards a private member’s bill. After
meeting with him, we received a letter of support on the 28 April 2005. Very soon after a committee was formed with CPO1 (ret’d) John Labelle-Campaign Coordinator, PO1 (ret’d) Roger
Boutin, Pr/Member, and CWO (ret’d) Mel Pittman, Web Master/Member. Mel then introduced us to LCOL (ret’d) James D. Lumsden, of Ottawa.
Mission. Our
Mission is to terminate all reduction formulas that are being applied to our Military/RCMP pension plans.
Back Ground. The
Canada Pension Plan (CPP) was enacted in 1965 and came into force on January 1, 1966. Its intention was to provide another source for an “Income Security” program supplementing
old age security.
CPP Facts. With
regards to the CPP, the employee and the employer each paid half of the required contribution. In 1966, the Government levied rate of contribution was 1.8% of pensionable earnings. Over
the years, in 1994 the rates had substantially increased to 4.95%. Military/RCMP members have always made separate maximum contributions to the plan. During the course of our career,
elevated amounts continued, thus, explaining the large billions of dollars surplus the plan continues to accumulate.
CFSA Facts. On
January 1, 1966 the employee’s contribution rate was reduced from 9.3% to 7.5%. Hence, over the years, our Military Pension Plans has accumulated a surplus of over 16.5 billion dollars. It would be absolutely ludicrous for members to make separate maximum contributions to three (3) different plans (CFSA, CPP, EI,) and later on in life expect to receive financial equivalent of one plan.
Different Government Provider. What
financial value can be established to the listed Statements?
In support of the Campaign. The
web site listed statements located in the “ Senior Leaders
endorse the issue “ link, clearly demonstrate the strong support we
have received from our retired very Senior Officers. Positive comments from
Major-General (ret’d) Lewis MacKenzie (The highest decorated Officer of the
Canadian Forces); Colonel (ret’d) Don Ethell (The most highly decorated Peace
keeping Officer of the Canadian Forces); Commodore (ret’d) David Cogdon; RCMP Deputy Commissioner (ret’d) Larry R. Proke; Mr. Bill Gidley, Executive Director, RCMP Veterans Association
of Canada; and former Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer (ret’d) John Marr.
Conclusion. This
initiative continues to grow over 31,000 personnel have expressed their support towards the mission. It is clear that members of the Canadian Forces/RCMP have been unfairly dealt with the
unilateral decision to integrate our CFSA/RCMPOA and CPP contributions rather than stacking the two (2) pension plans. Take note that the majority of Military/RCMP Pensioners whom retired
in the 1970/80 with over 30 years of service, in the year of the Veterans, today live on less than 15,000 a year annuity. Our Military Pension Plan is Flawed, when a former Canadian
Forces Chief Warrant Officer, whose Military pension benefits today is Less than a TQ3 trained Private. This indignity has plagued us for 40 years. We look towards the Prime
Minister of Canada, the Minister of National Defence and our Senior Military Officers to demonstrate Leadership by embracing the Welfare of the Veterans. Consider the elevated risk
and stress factor our Military/RCMP Personnel face on a regular basis with Billions of dollars surpluses in both plans. It has been an Honour and Privilege to serve Canada “ our Country “, and we continue to serve today!
As Veterans we want our Golden Years financial Dignity re-stored!
Sincerely,
John Labelle
Campaign Coordinator
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/military.pension
John Labelle – Campaign coordinator
Roger Boutin – PR/Member
Mel Pitman – Web Master/ Member Compiled through years of experience and the application of his knowledge in this area, Doc has put together two check lists: one for those still serving and are about to be medically released form the CF; and others, that have already been medically released but wish to make a claim. If you fall into one of the two categories, it is highly recommended that you check out VeteranVoice.info Self Help page at www.veteranvoice.info, or go the link below: http://www.veteranvoice.info/MyMedFile.htm This link will be published in each every subsequent Periodical. So check it often for any new additions. Doc can be contacted at toby6@veteranvoice.info . All veterans are encouraged to pass information, opinions, links to self-help sites onto VVi. VeteranVoice.info is a distribution centre and we are dependant on others to pass information. This is your site. Tell other veterans about your site. Email info@VeteranVoice.info .
Military/RCMP Pensioners Against Benefit Reduction at age 65: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/military.pension Canada Gazette - official newspaper of the federal government (Note: Pre-publication in the Gazette gives Canadians 30 days to review and comment on regulatory proposals): Reading Your Med File - http://www.veteranvoice.info/MyMedFile.htm |
||||||||
|
To subscribe to VeteranVoice.info click here! |
||||||||
|
Disclaimer and Non-Endorsement for VeteranVoice.info: Please
click here!. |
Print
Version