Conservative MP Laurie Hawn is a a$$hole

'We're not going to stand for it': vet

The veterans went to court because legislation in 2006 changed lifetime financial support for those fully or partially disabled to a lump sum payment to a maximum of $250,000.

In an email sent yesterday, Veterans Affairs communications director Joshua Zanin said veterans can access other "extensive support" through the New Veterans Charter.

Zanin also pointed to Veterans Affairs' budget increasing to $3.5 billion today from $2.8 billion in 2005.

And in a government statement last month, Veterans Affairs explained its court action this way: "[The veterans'] argument could have a far broader impact than perhaps intended by the plaintiffs... If accepted, this principle could undermine democratic accountability as parliamentarians of the future could be prevented from changing important legislation, including the sort of changes that some veterans would like to see to the New Veterans Charter," it said.

But Legion president Gordon Moore is not happy with the Conservatives.

"They have that moral obligation on behalf of all Canadians. I believe they're trying to slip out, but as we all know there will be an election within [two years] and there's a lot of upset and angry people out there on how veterans are being treated," Moore said last month.

While all political parties initially supported the change to benefits, which included some improvements for retraining and education, it's been clear for years that many veterans face life in poverty. The New Democrats and Liberals now agree changes are needed.

Port Moody's Kevin Berry served in Afghanistan and says the lump sum payment is only equivalent to 10 years of disability pension.

"Disability benefits for veterans have been slashed 40 to 90 per cent since 2006 under the New Veterans Charter, and myself and many others have been grossly under-compensated, and we are not willing to accept it -- we're not going to stand for it," the 29-year-old Berry told Global TV.

Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino says: "There exists a tangle of misinformation regarding how Canada treats its men and women who have served in uniform."

But that's not how wounded soldiers see it, and veterans ombudsman Guy Parent agrees.

"It is simply not acceptable to let veterans who have sacrificed the most for their country... live their lives with unmet financial needs," reads a report Parent released last month.

"Fifty-three per cent of veterans who are assessed to be totally and permanently incapacitated, and who are unable to engage in suitable gainful employment, are not awarded these benefits, which are designed to compensate severely and permanently impaired veterans for a lack of career opportunity and progression," the report states.

I fully agree that Judge Barnes ruled as per the Law, and not what was suggested otherwise, however I do not believe that this Judge will take any remarks that suggest that he ruled outside the scope of the Law to heart. This is a man of high character, who I think is above trying to explain his decision to anyone who publicly challenges it. We as Veterans are not asking for handouts, we are asking for what is rightfully ours. Politicians will argue, and fight to save a dime on our backs, that's what they do best, is it right, absolutely not, but they force us to fight back, and we will always fight back, that's what we do best, we just want what we deserve in a fair and understanding way, that's where the courts come in, it is people like Judge Barnes who look at the facts, not emotions, the facts, and makes his decision based on the facts. Hopefully in the future other Judges who will be making decisions on our behalf will be as fair, and thorough as he was.
It is a sad thing, knowing that the only way we the Veterans can have what we deserve, is to rely on the courts to protect our security.

Justice Barnes was very clear in his ruling that his decision was based on existing Insurance laws, not emotions. The laws state that a policy insurer is legally bound by the wording of the policy, not the intent, and onus for any discrepancies is one the insurer. So in the case of SISIP, even if the policy was written with the intent to deduct Pension Act benefits, it added the qualifying word "income", which legally should have excluded the disability pension. I really do hope that Justice Barnes reads that quote and comes forward to set the record straight.

really the courts were ruling on emotion and not the law WOW I really wonder if judge barns has read this??? i wonder what slandering a federal court judge gets ya????? judges always try to keep emotion out of it and keep to the law but i imagine it would be difficult when presiding over a lawsuit against someone who slandered one of their peers another judge.

always question authority

propat

obviously he didn't suck the PM's genitalia hard enough because he isn't satisfied still getting screwed here Lorri lol

“The whole package of benefits under the NVC is an improvement over the old Pension Act and even Peter Stoffer admits that. The supposed issues from Bill C-201 and C-215 were and are bogus. Manuge, etc. won on the SISIP clawback issue, because I and others worked hard to convince the PM to not appeal; even though the courts were ruling on emotion and not the law. We have done more and we will continue to do more with people of good faith.”

It is in my view that although some improvements under the new NVC do exist, these improvements were implemented for a reason, I do believe that the reason is as follows : they new that the NVC could not fool Veterans, they fully expected backlash from Veterans, and perhaps even new that it would end up in court, however if they did add some improvements, it may play well with the general public, therefor instead of just adding improvements to the old system, they come out with this NVC which includes the Lump sum payment. It is no surprise that this whole issue is all about cost cutting on the backs of Veterans. Just listen to the individuals who agree, and or claim that the Lump sum is better than the lifelong pension, they believe this because they do not fully understand it, don't fully see it, they are trying to sell it's value, at the end of the day the fact of the matter is that it's all about cost cutting, it's as simple as that. It's like trying to sell a car that does not work, by putting 10 coats of wax on it to fool the buyer, the buyer may of been fooled by purchasing it, but the seller may end up with the short end of the stick, when the buyer takes them to court. It's starting to become a way of life for Veterans, who will represent us in a court of law, we are being forced to take the course of the courts, this only puts a strain on Veterans who should not be forced to do this, I do have trust in the courts as it is extremely difficult to fool them, nevertheless we are being forced to do this to protect our well deserved security. My point is blunt, you have not for one second fooled me.

They did not appeal the SISIP issue for one reason and one reason only - They knew that they would not be successful period.

Right from that article it said Harper had to be convinced not to appeal, like pulling teeth , it's funny how he just approved increased funding for funerals because that's where he wants all of us

Agreed however tossed is just to nice of a word to be used I can think of a lot better words to be used but we would not want to use them it might hurt some feelings of people who still believe in these morons LOL

Does anyone really think the conservatives have veterans issues in there agenda, check out the budget, nothing, Alot of conservatives think VAC and LTD are nothing more than welfare. These guys need to be tossed next election

Veterans Can Thank Me And Others For The SISIP Victory, Not the Courts, Says Conservative MP Laurie Hawn

check out this idiot..........................

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/12/veterans-can-thank-me-and-others-for-the-sisip-victory-not-the-courts-says-conservative-mp-laurie-hawn/