Vets ombudsman reappointed by Tories

trooper he used the same lines as the GOC uses ALL THE FRACKIN TIME. it actually looks like the GOC wrote this for him the augment is so similar if not exactly the same.

they love to add well there are other monthly benefits trying to muddy the waters thinking we are stupid or something , I might be dumb but I aint that dumb .

what they ALLWAYS fail to mention that those benefits are also available to the PA guys.

OVO do your fracking job or move the frack on!!!!!!

propat

REALLY teen . wholy frickity frack he is the fracking ombudsman if something is fracking wrong he should speak up don't ya think????? how about the largest reduction in veterans compensation in this country and probably the FREE FRACKIN WOURLD ????? no ??? nothing !!!! what about if they legislated the elimination of ALL veterans benefits altogether ??? that would be the system he would be mandated to work within . would he say nothing??????

saying nothing to save his job or to keep within his mandate however you look at it, I GET THAT . staying in his mandate by pointing out OTHER PROBLEMS with the NVC without once mentioning the biggest and also the most expensive one I DONT GET THAT.

if pointing out these other problems is in his mandate CLEARLY the biggest problem is as well !!!

what I really don't get is not just shutting his mouth about it but coming out and CLEARLY and yes ill say it again CLEARLY fracking support it.

MYTH BUSTING

remember that teen.

you posted it did you read it before you did so ???

if not did you read some of the comments after the myth busting posts where he CLEARLY supports the buyout ?????

if he doesn't support the buyout but wants to keep his job he should just shut his fracking mouth about it .

better yet how about doing his fracking job and while making ANY recommendation how about adding this one ..........

END THE FRACKIN BUYOUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he is allowed to make recommendations ???? is he not ????

im sure ive seen him do it before !!!!!

propat

If you look at Mr. Parent's Myth Busting the New Veterans Charter Lump Sum Payment he speaks of the lump sum an he writes that; “Under the New Veterans Charter a Veteran only receives a lump sum payment. There are no monthly payments for life.”

Then he goes on to say that it is false which I'm sure most would agree with him.

I too would agree with that , but what I don't agree with is using the other available payments in the NVC that are for life to somehow make the point that Veterans are fighting to rid the lump sum solely on the fact that they are misunderstanding the knowledge of knowing full well about these other pensions for life that are available besides the lump sum.

That is not a misunderstanding  at least from the Veterans , the reason I think there's so much negativity towards the lump sum is that in the old act there were also an assortment of pensions for life - or added awards to the pa pension for life an keep in mind that there all tax free for life.
So to me the assumption that anyone thinks - or is solely against the lump sum for thinking that there's no pensions for life is false.
The problem lies directly with the lump sum itself , I do not have to prove this as the numbers don't lie.

So in fairness to the OVO , yes I agree that there's Monthly payments that are available besides the lump sum but I disagree that Veterans - or a least individuals don't realize this , an that it is the lump sum by itself that raises the issue.

So unsure of what his perception was when he wrote this , rather it be to point out other available pensions besides the lump sum - or was he in any way pointing out the merits of the NVC which includes the lump sum , not real sure but the MVA also holds the same view , in fact many defenders of the lump sum seem to all hold this same view.

Well I know Guy and he doesn't support the buyout. it was his Office that did reports on how weak the NVC when it came to payment. The OVO was the only office to do an actuarial on ELB. The report showed how at 65 vets would be living under the poverty line. He fought for an increase to 90% for ELB. He basically was up Harpers arse to improve the NVC.

Does he like the buyout? Of course not! None of us do but his mandate was to work with the NVC and PA. If he was independent the buyout would definitely come out.

And lets not forget the 3 reports he did on language, VRAB and having a 3rd party law firm look at 150 cases that went to Federal Court where it was discovered 65% of them did not need to go to Federal Court.

Since those VRAB reports more medical and military have been appointed to VRAB. So his reports obviously resonated with the PMO's office.

One other thing to remember here his 3 year contract can be terminated at anytime. So if a new PM doesn't like him he is gone.

Just because a guy isn't bombastic like Stogran was doesn't mean he is a suck up. He did what should have been done since day 1 when the Veteran Ombudsman Office was created...do your research...hire a 3rd party to review your research....then report the findings.

well if the OVO supports the buyout its gotta be good right???? im wondering if the next government ends the buyout will he support that as well?????

lets face it they will never appoint anyone that will not support the buyout so not really a big deal I guess.

propat

Personally, I think that he was extended, because he wasn't combative against Harper, and puffed up any changes that were made, in spite of how minimal they may be.

Although I have no reason not to like Mr. Parent.........I don't trust Harper...period....the guy can lie without opening his mouth, that is how good he is and by that time it's too late we find out after the fact......always an agenda/ulterior motive with him....he can need be transparent or do what he says.......how many times has he gone back on his word!! ya.......too many times to count.

I suspect Mr. Parent is back because he is favourable with veterans and that in turn helps Harper.

Riddick

Well, I will vouch for one of the appointments. Last week , I thought my old boss might have been appointed as the new Ombudsmen, but apparently, it was to the VRAB. Terry Prowse is a retiring CPO1 NESOP, and even though he was posted into the Ottawa region for the lat several years, he is still a sailor at heart.

Boy, what a news flash. No pip or squeak about it on the OVO site either. I bear in mind it was the con's who created the OVO to begin with. But hell, I was wondering who would replace him.

The timing is a co-incidence, but I give Guy Parent more kudos if he still has the heart for it.

Because he could have flat out... declined. pinger.

Well looks like Guy Parent is sticking around.......................

http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/5808860-vets-ombudsman-reappointed-by-tories/


OTTAWA - The Harper government quietly extended the term of the country's veterans ombudsman on the eve of the federal election and handed out a series of appointments for an important, if often criticized, review agency.

Guy Parent, whose served as an advocate for ex-soldiers and an adviser to the veterans minister, was given a three-year extension to his mandate in a cabinet order dated July 28.

He was chosen to replace outspoken retired army colonel Pat Stogran in 2010 — a five year term, which was supposed expire in November without renewal.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board saw three appointments on the Friday before the election, including a one-year term extension for a P.E.I. woman whose husband had once lobbied embattled Sen. Mike Duffy on her behalf.

Joan Walsh, a mental health nurse and respected health-care administrator, has been a member of the review agency, which mediates claims by veterans, since 2006, but her name — and along with that of her husband — surfaced earlier this year in Duffy's widely publicized diaries.

In a note dated Oct. 26, 2011, filed as part of the ongoing trial, Duffy references a lunch in the parliamentary restaurant with Island Conservative Leo Walsh "who wants wife reappointed to VRAB (Veteran’s Review and Appeal Board)."

Joan Walsh was reappointed in 2012 and again on July 31, according to cabinet records posted online.

Alongside Walsh, former New Brunswick lawyer Bernard LeBlanc and Ottawa resident Terry Prowse were also given slots on the panel, which has faced criticism from some veterans groups and the Federal Court in the past.

A spokesman for Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole said it was in the best interest of veterans to reappoint Parent and fill the three review positions without delay.

"Both the ombudsman and the VRAB serve veterans," said Martin Magnan.

"To delay reappointment of the ombudsman until less than a month prior to expiry of his term would be a disservice both to the ombudsman and the veterans he serves."

Magnan also said delays would have meant the review board would have fallen below its required number of members, resulting in delays and postponement of appeals — something "the minister was not willing to allow that to happen."

Last spring, the Federal Court of Appeal handed down a ruling that said both the review board and the veterans department itself needed to take more care in deciding on the mental health claims of soldiers.

The court set out a four-part guideline for both to follow and a spokesman for O'Toole said last month that the federal government would abide by the courts.

Sean Bruyea, a high-profile veterans advocate, said Parent's extension is curious and somewhat troubling, because the ombudsman was originally appointed to a five-year, non-renewable term.

Cabinet records posted online show that provision was quietly changed on June 5 to allow the term to be renewed.

Bruyea said a committee of MPs should be vetting reappointments and should be able to pass judgment on the record of incumbent watchdogs.

"The ombudsman should be selected independently, or through an all-party committee," said Bruyea, who questioned Parent's track record.

Disgruntled veterans unhappy with how they have been treated by the Conservatives, including the closure of nine regional offices focused on helping veterans, have promised to campaign against the Harper government during the election.

Bruyea said the surreptitious way the appointments and changes have been handled gives fodder to the opposition parties.

"It will reinforce the perception this government is trying to serve its own selfish ends."






Cheer's