DND fires three civilian execs, including official in charge of pension clawback

Excellent research Abeterway! After reading that I would say with 99% certainty that these 3 presidents who were fired will be replaced with a military officer no lower then a Col.

How else is the military going to explain why it needs so many officers with so few NCO's?

Hi Peeps this may give you some more insite into sisip.

This is Mr. André Bouchards Statement to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
EVIDENCE Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Mr. André Bouchard (President, Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), Department of National Defence):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of Parliament.
[English]

Merci beaucoup for inviting us here today to answer any questions pertaining to our mandate to deliver the long-term disability and vocational rehabilitation programs.
This is a Government of Canada employer-sponsored plan for the men and women of the Canadian Forces. Essentially our plan mirrors other Government of Canada disability insurance plans for public servants, including members of Parliament.
(1115)

[Translation]

Treasury Board of Canada has full governance over the plan. I am the President of SISIP Financial Services and I am responsible to the Chief of the Defence Staff through the Canadian Forces personnel and family support services, to provide the long-term disability, which includes the vocational rehabilitation program.
We are not a contractor, and in fact are part of the Department of National Defence structure.
[English]

I would like to mention that when a decision is made to medically release a CF member, SISIP financial services becomes actively involved through the provision of a vocational rehabilitation program, often nine months before the effective date of release, with the financial support starting up to six months before release. After release, the vocational rehabilitation program continues to provide support for another 24 months in conjunction with monthly long-term disability support. At 24 months, clients are assessed on a definition of total disability that considers not only the medical condition, but also education, training, and experience.
[Translation]

If a client does not meet the definition of "total disability", then the client is capable and has the skills to return to the workplace in viable employment.
If the client does meet the contract definition of "totally disabled", support may then continue up to age 65.
Clients supported with Long-Term Disability and Vocational Rehabilitation through SISIP FS may simultaneously be provided with medical and psycho-social support through the New Veterans Charter.
[English]

Vocational and earnings loss benefit support from VAC can only start once the SISIP financial services has closed the client's file because the client doesn't meet the contract definition of total disability. In other words, SISIP financial services is always the first payer.
For information purposes, since 2006, SISIP financial services has supported over 3,900 disability claims, of which 124 were from Afghanistan. We've paid out over 1,500 life claims, of which 141 were from Afghanistan, and we've paid out 55 dismemberment claims, of which 39 were from Afghanistan.
Since 2006, the SISIP program has paid out over $300 million in direct support to our CF veterans, and the vocational rehabilitation program has helped over 1,500 veterans return to gainful employment.
Before closing I would like to say that the monthly pension hike benefit continues to be offset against SISIP LTD and all of the public sector plans, including the earnings loss benefit under Veterans Affairs Canada. As this issue is before the courts, I cannot make any comments related specifically to this litigation.
[Translation]

In closing, I would like to introduce Mr. Doug Chislett, National Director of the SISIP Financial Services Vocational Rehabilitation who will join me in answering your questions. Thank you.
[English]

I have a question for the SISIP folks. Thank you again for being here.
I want you to distinguish between those who were veterans before the new Veterans Charter, and veterans who are part of the new Veterans Charter. There's a difference in the way SISIP works for those who become veterans once they are considered new veterans.
Could you explain how SISIP is different for pre-2006 veterans compared to new veterans?

Mr. André Bouchard:
In terms of benefits, essentially the benefit structure has not changed since the implementation of the new charter in 2006, where the charter introduced a disability award effective April 2006 and essentially cancelled the monthly Pension Act benefits.
The amount of a disability award, which is a lump sum amount that is clearly for pain and suffering, is not an offset against any SISIP benefit that someone receives.
To put this in context, the benefit under the SISIP platform is 75% of a member's salary at the time of release. There is also a list of reductions that apply. Some of these reductions include the Canada Pension Plan and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and maybe some earned income. Pre-2006, the monthly Pension Act was also an offset against SISIP.
That's essentially the big difference pre-charter. After the charter the DA is no longer an offset, whereas the monthly Pension Act is still an offset today if someone was to come on claims with such a benefit.

Mr. Robert Oliphant:
In that, the monthly Pension Act benefit is considered income and the lump sum disability award under the new Veterans Charter is not income.

Mr. André Bouchard:
The fact is, we don't make the distinction that the monthly Pension Act is a form of income. When it was included in the list of deductions in 1976, it was considered through Treasury Board, when the TB submission was made and approved, that anyone in receipt of this, I can say in quotations, “income” or benefit...it would become an offset against the SISIP LTD.

Mr. Robert Oliphant:
So the definition of an offset then is not clear. There's a list as opposed to a definition.

Mr. André Bouchard:
That's correct.

Mr. Robert Oliphant:
The list is such that it could include things that could be reasonably understood to be pain and suffering, benefit or income. There could be some vagueness.
(1125)


Mr. André Bouchard:
Yes. The policy as it is written does not make a distinction like the CPP or the CFSA. It's all classified under a list of reductions. In the broad sense, it's classified as being essentially benefits. Some of it is also income; the CFSA is income.

Mr. Robert Oliphant:
But a CPP disability award for dismemberment would not offset an award for PTSD. Are those separate or combined?

Mr. André Bouchard:
With respect to SISIP, it doesn't matter for what reason the CPP is being received. If someone is in receipt of CPP disability, it is part of the list of offsets under the policy, so it would be reduced from the 75%.

Mr. Robert Oliphant:
So SISIP then is essentially filling the holes where other programs are not covering, but it's the first claim.

Mr. André Bouchard:
That's right. We're kind of considered a last payer, but in fact we pay first. We will pay upfront 75% of benefits at the time of the member's release. Then the member signs a statement of understanding that should they get benefits from CPP, the Pension Act, or earned income, they have to report this, and then the 75% will be adjusted accordingly.

Mr. Robert Oliphant:
Thanks.

Sorry peeps I don't know who will replace them.

Peeps i read you post of yesterday several times and i feel really sorry for the trouble you have been through.i can only imagine how this new sisip challenge has affected you and your family.

Do not give up your fight for justice,I have found it is not a sprint, but a process and if you stick with it i feel you will have some success.

Cheers John.

Abetted way,
Who are their deputies!
This maybe my only chance to over ride Mrs XXXX.

I woukd like to change the first paragraph, to read as follows.

OTTAWA – Three mid-level civilian executives at National Defence were inexplicably fired earlier this month, including a director who’s been at the centre of a class-action lawsuit
that ...( DID )... cost ... ( Injured Veterans )... up to $600 million in Lost Veterans Pensions.

This the truth not the way the Gov and Media likes to spin things.

Cheers.

This is what you call a real gag order ."OFF WITH THEIR HEADS"
I guess no one is accountable now. Out of sight out of mind.

exit package ?

Copied from Macleans.ca

OTTAWA – Three mid-level civilian executives at National Defence were inexplicably fired earlier this month, including a director who’s been at the centre of a class-action lawsuit that could cost the federal treasury up to $600 million.

Andre Bouchard, Gerry Mahon and Randy Helgason were let go Oct. 3 in what defence sources say was “an attempt to change the direction of each organization.”

The dismissals came out of the blue, according to defence insiders.

In the case of Bouchard, president of the Defence Department’s insurance program, it came at a critical juncture as the federal government negotiates its way through a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit.

Mahon headed CANEX, the chain of military base retail stores, and Helgason was in charge of personnel support programs.

Their departures were announced internally, but have not been explained, and in each case deputies have been appointed as acting replacements