Myth Busting - Why the New Veterans Charter Came Into Effect

I have such a lifestyle Bigrex. 2006 Kandahar tour. Once. Disabled and severely. Unavle to join any work. My PTSD alone is rated 81%. I am TPI at 36, since 33. And no pension. Served less then 10 years, as a corporal reg force 2PPCLI. I can't figure why I keep waking up. I don't want to be here.

From everything that I have read, one of the biggest misconceptions on the part of the Government, when introducing the NVC, deals with disabled Veterans and employment. They said that the NVC was intended to push Veterans back into the labour force, instead of just sitting home collecting a Pension Act pension. That was the biggest load of carp I have ever heard. If a veteran was sitting at home, it was because they couldn't work, not because they were lazy. Even if getting a 100% PA pension, they could work full time and never lose a cent. But if a Veteran starts collecting any monthly benefits under the NVC, those benefits are greatly reduced, or even cancelled, the moment the Veteran even attempts to hold any sort of job, regardless of how many hours or wage they may earn. So why would they risk losing money from VAC, to look for a job that may only be able to handle for a few months or years?

The new system could have simply been called, " The Unpension Act".

he just cant see the forest though the trees . if your job includes finding and dealing with problems as best you can yet you can not see the largest problem standing right in front of you . well perhaps a career change is in order to say something more suited to your aptitude .

always question authority

propat

Teen,

Thanks for keeping us up to date with what Mr. Parent is writing.

Again, Mr. Parent continues to show that he is fully engaged, and completely dedicated in doing his job, in writing clear and understandable comments that proves to us all that he is working very hard on our behalf.
And again, I would say we are very lucky to have him as our OVO.

I would like to respectfully make a few comments of my own on what he has wrote, not to second guess what he has wrote, not to show disrespect against him, just to respond in the way I see it, with respect to my own views on the implementation of the NVC.

First off, I totally agree that misunderstandings and misinformation played a part into how some have viewed the NVC.
That said, I would say that as the information became more evident as those Veterans who fell under the NVC, it is then when those Veterans started to question the merits of the NVC, I think it is then when the perception changed, and changed quickly.
As a Veteran myself, one important observation I saw was from every angle of debate on the NVC, the lump sum issue was without any doubt at the top of the list.
I would even go as far to say that in my own opinion, it is the lump sum issue that is driving this whole ordeal with respect to the NVC, without it, I don't think we would be where we are at today, which includes the Law suit.

This now brings me to para 6 of the comments in particular where it states that " bringing existing benefits under the pension act in line with these new approaches would require a major reform to the Veterans benefit system " now I have a real problem with that, and I will say why.
Again, it is just my opinion, I would argue that the NVC itself is - and qualifies as a major reform to the Veterans benefit system, and for others to not see in that way, is just beyond me.
Further to that, the NVC minus the " LUMP SUM " most if not all of these changes could have been married into the old pension act without any major problems, one just has to look at changes that have been done in the past to the old pension act.

In my own opinion the NVC may have very well had good intentions, but I think those that worked on this missed the big picture, and that would be the lump sum.
Also, I think that those who do support the lump sum, are using the window dressing approach in selling other changes that are in the NVC to defend it.
From where I sit, sure they can change and tweak what is in the NVC, but until they get to the heart of the matter which is the lump sum, the fight to have the lump sum removed altogether will continue, in, and out of court.
To my point, one just simply has to do the math in comparing the lump sum from the NVC, to the lifelong pension of the old pension act, to really understand why Veterans are upset with it.
As a Veteran myself, I hope that those who are defending the NVC in part because of what the NVC has to offer as a whole, would take a good look at the lump sum part of the NVC, and make their choice based on the detail facts of how this lump sum puts the Veterans at a disadvantage in given them and their families a better sense of security in living their final years.

how about this ; END THE BUYOUT NOW!!!!!!!!

always question authority

propat

“The New Veterans Charter was implemented without consultation and only for cost-cutting reasons.”

Q: True or False?

A: False

Support for Canada’s injured and ill Veterans has struck a chord with many Canadians. Hardly a day goes by without someone commenting in the media about problems with how Veterans are supported under the New Veterans Charter (NVC).

Critics of the NVC criticize its deficiencies, while supporters point out the lack of understanding about the benefits and services available to injured and ill Veterans and their families. Sometimes the facts fall victim to emotion, misunderstanding and misinformation. Such is often the case in the discussion of why the NVC replaced the Pension Act in 2006 as the system for Veterans’ benefits and services.

Some have claimed that the NVC came into effect because the Government wanted to cut the cost of supporting Veterans. Those who agree believe that because the payment of a disability pension for life under the Pension Act was too expensive, bureaucrats devised a new way of compensating Veterans for an injury or illness related to service – the one-time lump sum disability award. While cost containment was a consideration, it was not the only reason the NVC came into effect.

What is not always understood or acknowledged is that the Pension Act did not meet the needs of many injured and ill Veterans. For many Veterans eligible for a disability pension, the amount of the pension was not sufficient to provide the basic necessities of living. Veterans who were unable to work and were not eligible for other benefits such as the Canada Pension Plan disability pension, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) pension or the Canadian Forces SISIP Long-Term Disability plan income replacement benefit faced significant financial challenges. For Veterans who were able to work, the Pension Act could not help them with retraining or the transition to a civilian job.

How the NVC came to be

The March 2004 Veterans Affairs Canada – Canadian Forces Advisory Committee discussion paper Honouring Canada’s Commitment: Opportunity with Security for Canadian Forces Veterans and Their Families in the 21st Century provides insight into why the NVC was implemented. The Advisory Committee conducted extensive fact-finding research with regard to the support of injured and ill CAF members and Veterans. It also visited a number of CAF bases and heard from senior commanders, officers and non-commissioned members, Veterans and their families. The conclusion from this extensive research and outreach was that VAC did not have the tools to provide the type of assistance required by a growing number of injured and ill Veterans and families. A new approach was needed.

The 1998 joint federal, provincial and territorial report, In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disability Issues, appears to have influenced some of the Advisory Committee’s thinking on how to better support injured and ill Veterans. It advocated for better access to educational and training opportunities to improve the participation of persons with disabilities in the economic and social mainstream. As well, the report proposed new approaches for dealing with persons with disabilities, such as independence versus dependence, active measures to promote employment versus passive income support, among others. With these ideas in mind, it became clear to the Advisory Committee that bringing the existing benefits under the Pension Act in line with these new approaches would require a major reform of the Veterans’ benefit system. This was apparent to VAC also. In September 2003, it stood up a departmental Services and Program Modernization Task Force to develop a suite of programs and services to facilitate the successful transition of CAF members and families to civilian life.

In March 2004, the Advisory Committee published its “...Opportunity with Security...” paper, the culmination of almost four years of research and consultation on the support of CAF members, Veterans and their families. The paper proposed a comprehensive overhaul of Veterans benefits and services, including improved transition and retraining support, enhanced civilian employment opportunities for disabled members, and the thorough overhaul of the way CAF members and Veterans were compensated for injury. The NVC was the result. It came into effect in 2006 and adopted many of the principles and recommendations proposed by the Advisory Committee.

The NVC – a work in progress

To state that implementing the NVC was only about cutting costs fails to recognize the significant amount of research and thought that went into its development. While some criticize the NVC, in many ways it offers better support to Veterans and their families than does the Pension Act. That said, better support does not necessarily mean sufficient support.

Many reports have been published since 2006 that make it clear that the NVC has major deficiencies that need to be addressed. I have written often about the changes required to the NVC – here are the top five priorities:

Improved financial security after age 65
Better access to allowances for those with the greatest need
Income support equity for Veterans who served as reservists
Better support to families
Improved income support during rehabilitation and transition
The bottom line is that neither the NVC nor the Pension Act is perfect. Our focus going forward must be on addressing the deficiencies within the Charter so that injured and ill Veterans and their families receive the help they need to successfully transition to a new life.

In its response to the 2014 Report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the Government indicated that it is well aware of these deficiencies. Action is needed now!

Guy Parent

Veterans Ombudsman

http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/eng/blog/post/287