More than $200M unspent in veterans budget last year

ya teen I agree the medical officer in my opinion the best starting point they are kinda like your family doctor so to speak . they have your records know your history and even know you personally to a point IE; character and what not .

I've almost always been treated great by the medical staff to the best of their abilities . the specialists well different story their I got one orthopedic surgeon in mind but now im off track and about to start a big rant lol. ill avoid that .

but ya the BEST starting point for sure .

propat

I want them to be independent but like propat said side by side. I do know that if they could "work" together on issues a lot could get done. Mainly medical reports. it has been discussed that when a person joins the CF a medical file is automatically generated with VAC. That means every medical doc, immunization, environmental exposure, deployment etc is in VAC's file to expedite applications.

I've always been of the belief that if an injury gets you kicked out of the forces then it should be automatic payment from VAC with benefits and rehab. That is the single greatest advantage to having the CF medical officer making the "starting point" for a vet's health when medically released.

Looks like they can afford to pay me PIA then.

teen a big fracking NO yup that's for the two questions .

now don't get me wrong I think their offices should be side by side but and if they could manage it right across the hall from the MND and the MVA whose offices would be side by side .

just my 2 nickels

propat

This is what is going to happen, merger of vac into DND , the writing is on the wall. It's all about saving money! DND will medical release member he's sent over to the Vac department within DND as is his medical documents, decision made on pension then out the door!

I'm glad you asked those questions teen.

With respect to the first question the answer for me anyway would be no...not locked up together in one room...keep both OVO's title within their own respective file...but a better working relationship in sharing their thoughts an suggestions to help both files progress in a positive way...working together keeping their own mandate as per their own file.

With respect to the second question I already gave my opinion on the first page of this topic...but would love to hear what others have to say in giving their opinions with respect to both questions.

Good stuff !

Here's the senior policy advisor's full comments

OTTAWA—Veterans Affairs under-spent its budget by $200 million last year, raising questions about the Liberal government’s plan to pump even more cash into a system that seems perpetually unable to get money out the door.
The figures are contained in the latest plans and priority report for the federal budget year that ended last March, which shows many of the federal government’s marquee disability and entitlement programs had surpluses of tens of millions of dollars.
Janice Summerby, a spokeswoman, says it is largest difference between planned and actual spending at the veterans department in the last decade.
The Conservatives, while they were in power, were accused by the Liberals and New Democrats of deliberately under-spending at the same department — to the tune of $1.13 billion over seven years — in an attempt to balance the budget on the backs on veterans, an assertion the Harper government denied.
The last election campaign saw the Liberals promise to spend an additional $300 million a year to improve benefits and support, including a return to life-long pensions, as opposed to lump-sum injury compensation payments.
The department’s report says the current pot of unspent funds is the result of veterans not taking advantage of available benefits, and adds it’s difficult to forecast how many will actually apply.
Summerby added the difference between planned and actual spending has no impact on the level of care and support.
All of the lapsed funds were returned to the federal treasury.

Andrew Bernardo, who served as a policy adviser under the Conservatives, said one of the most frustrating aspects of that party’s tenure was an absence of data to make informed decisions within Veterans Affairs, particularly on rehabilitation programs.
The minister’s office was often “as blind as a bat” when it came to being able to assess and benchmark programs, he said.
“This isn’t just a systemic issue with Veterans Affairs, but it is across the board,” said Bernardo, who emphasized his comments are not intended to be partisan. He said he takes the Liberals at their word that they’re looking for good ideas from across the political spectrum.
“Government is getting better at it, but yeah, it is surprising and what it means is the minister of veterans affairs and the defence minister, no matter how well intentioned — if you don’t have those figures, it is very difficult.”
Writing a blank cheque for veterans is not going to guarantee improved services, warned Bernardo, adding that he doesn’t believe the Liberals fully appreciate how difficult it’s going to be to push an extra $300 million through the system, nor its impact on the bottom line.
Under the government’s accrual accounting system, the full cost of some of the programs — particularly pensions — will have to be booked up front in the year they are announced.
That, said Bernardo, will drive up the federal deficit.
He said he believes there are several common sense things the government can do that will make the lives of veterans better without breaking the bank.
Among the ideas is a proposal to combine the offices of the veterans and Canadian Forces ombudsman.
Bernardo says Guy Parent and Gary Walbourne should be locked in a room together until they come up with a plan to combine their functions and mandates because they essentially serve the same constituency.
Another proposal involves allowing the Canadian Forces surgeon general to decide whether a soldier’s injury is attributable to service — a hugely controversial issue within the veterans community.
At the moment, both National Defence and Veterans Affairs have their own systems. Ex-soldiers have, in some cases, been denied benefits for injuries that got them kicked out of the military in the first place.
Bernardo says giving the surgeon general the last word would conceivably eliminate a whole bureaucracy that has been geared to handling appeals, smoothing the way for veterans to get their benefits faster.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/01/31/more-than-200m-unspent-in-veterans-budget-last-year.html

Question for all.....do you think it's a good idea for the Military and Veteran's Ombudsman to be one entitly?
And should VAC adopt the Military Doctor be the final say on the injury then build the benefit it from there?

Here is something else to read on this ;

The Numbers Are In; Harper Government Did ‘Balance The Budget’ At The Expense Of Veterans

Last year, as suicides among Canadian war veterans mounted and tragic stories of veterans suffering with PTSD increased, the Harper government denied any culpability in the matter and continued to stick to their story that they had committed millions of dollars toward veterans issues.

Well now, Veterans Affairs have been able to review the numbers and a sad and troubling picture emerges.

The government did promise a lot of money for veterans issues, but the record shows that they underspent by about $200 million.

And yes, they did transfer that money into the Treasury to create a pseudo ‘balanced budget’ heading into the election.

A senior policy advisor to the Harper government has now revealed that the Minister in charge was ‘ as blind as a bat’ when it came to allocating funds.

It’s shameful that a government would withhold money from needy veterans to enhance their own chances for re-election.

My heart goes out to the veterans and their families who were denied help because of this self-serving political tactic.

Maybe lives could have been saved and suffering averted if the government made that money available .

Sadly, we can’t turn back the clock but we can and we must ensure that our government never again turn their backs to those who put their lives on the line in service to Canada.

http://www.900chml.com/2016/02/01/the-numbers-are-in-harper-government-did-balance-the-budget-at-the-expence-of/

I like the fact that the guy who wrote the article included the little bullet points of random internet comments made by unknown individuals .
The GOC better not be feeding us with plain old lies.
Firebird and I were feed the same shit  two years ago about applying for the PIA.
Both denied, Inexcusable!
Everyday it is something new guys and the headlines keep popping up and they are not saying anything positive about the treatment of Veterans?
as Navrat says, he heard it from the horses mouth that changes are coming.

"Veterans Affairs claims that it is because veterans themselves aren’t taking advantage of the available benefits." according to this article below

Why can’t Veterans Affairs management provide enough information to government so it can spend on veterans?

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/why-cant-veterans-affairs-management-provide-enough-information-to-government-so-it-can-spend-on-veterans




Cheers

When a vet dies you have to take into account the monthly PA, daily living aids, in-home nursing, attendance allowance, special drugs.

This is the way it has been explained to me by many ADM's and plain ol' VAC employees from various departments.

Each benefit is costed each year for the budget. When a veteran dies there is a ripple effect of cesation of benefits. So they take that data to forecast the amount needed for the next year.

If there is not enough money in a benefit, let's use the widow's benefit, then a memo is written to TB for funding or to top up the widow's benefit money amount.

TB does not like shifting excess money from one benefit to another. It apparently get's lost in translation when costing the benefit for the following year.

I have always been told TB never denies top up funding because they know unspent benefit money comes back to TB at the end of the year. Also it is an obligation that if a vet has a benefit the GoC must pay it. They don't care if it's one vet or thousands of vets; they pay it.

All that said unspent benefit money adjusts the following years costing for that benefit.

I agree with propat. If the 200 million surplus is because Veterans passed away, and don't have surviving spouses, that is one thing. But if the money was assigned for things like the RISB and FCRB, and expanding PIA eligibility, and went unspent because the payouts were so small, or the number of recipients was so low, then I would have an issue.

We will prevail!

Good advice, but it wouldn't be a waste of my fifteen minutes of fame for the benefit of Veterans?  A little make up, a nice suit and a background flag of Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces Tri Element logo, with a well written speech and voila! we now have a puppet.  
I need a puppeteer!Trooper write a speech god dammit !
lmao, like I said we are powerless.  
Teen has a good point...................keep the pressure up through media and through social media.  
Honestly to the life of me I can not believe that Canada put "scum" to look after Veterans and VRAB can look you in the eyes once and decide what you are entitled to.  
Ladies and gentleman there is a problem with that and we are about to fix that. Cut the fat at the top ! let them live in poverty and at a constant state of worry.

well im not concerned to much about the unspent money I would be more concerned about WHY it was unspent. being over budget is a good thing to a point it ensures all the moneys needed will be there with a little extra if needed .

thing is the question why ? that's the most important . why is the budget so small ?

that's the question .

propat