Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"
- Thread starter dogger1936
- Start date
Teager said:
My sympathies to you and your friends and their families.
So the answer to my question is 1 - Op Medusa.
Globe & Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/4-canadians-killed-6-wounded-in-afghan-battle/article1102563/
"Canadian troops launched a ground assault on an insurgent position Sunday and met fierce resistance that killed four Canadians and injured six others in one of the deadliest battles...Before Sunday's casualties, at least six Canadians died and 32 were wounded in dozens of bomb attacks and ambushes."
- Reaction score
- 4,690
- Points
- 1,160
For those concerned about the government fighting veterans in court, here's your chance to force CTV's Lisa Laflamme to ask the PM tough questions for his year-end interview. No sign up or email address required.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-national-news/ask-the-prime-minister
Here's the question I asked (feel free to plagiarize so it gets asked):
http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-national-news/ask-the-prime-minister
Here's the question I asked (feel free to plagiarize so it gets asked):
- Reaction score
- 4,690
- Points
- 1,160
cowboy628 said:
This has some details on the government arguments to have it thrown out.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-looks-to-dismiss-veterans-lawsuit-claiming-mefloquine-damage/article37046865/
- Reaction score
- 1,393
- Points
- 1,160
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/disabled-veterans-equitas-supreme-court-1.4510457
'Grossly unfair': Disabled veterans take pension battle with Liberals to Supreme Court - Kathleen Harris - 31 Jan 18, 09:03
Case claims federal government breached 'solemn obligation' to care for injured soldier
A group of disabled veterans is taking its legal fight for better pensions to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The six veterans involved in what is called the Equitas case say the federal government has a sacred obligation to care for the country's wounded soldiers, and that the duty was breached in a 2006 overhaul to the compensation regime for those injured in the line of duty.
Mark Campbell, a retired major, and former combat engineer Aaron Bedard, both part of the Equitas suit, are holding a news conference in Ottawa at 10 a.m. ET today to release details of the legal appeal to the Supreme Court. CBCNews.ca is carrying it live.
Campbell said it's a "national disgrace" that the government is spending tax dollars in a legal fight against injured veterans, and "untolerable" that changes to the pension regime have left two standards of compensation for soldiers, depending on when they were injured.
"This is grossly unfair and it has to change," he said.
The overhaul replaced lifelong disability pensions with a lump-sum payment, career training and targeted income support, which the veterans claim was worth less than the previous pension system.
The case, which they hoped to turn into a class-action lawsuit, has been winding its way through the courts since 2012. It was launched when the Conservative government was in power but continued under the Liberals.
Last year the B.C. Court of Appeal struck down the veterans' claim.
Lawyer Don Sorochan, who is representing the Equitas group, hopes the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to that decision, and definitively rule on whether the government has a "social covenant" or sacred obligation, and whether it is enforceable.
"The position taken by the government was astonishing. For them to stand up and say we don't have any special obligation to veterans was completely contrary to everything they had been saying in Parliament, on the election campaign," he told CBC News.
During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to give veterans the option to have a lifelong pension.
Major changes announced
After much frustration and protests, the government announced major changes to the compensation system in December 2017 that would pour about $3.6 billion into veterans' benefits.
But Campbell called that proposal a "sham."
"The new pension for life is nothing more than a shell game," he said.
According to a copy of the court filing to the high court, the case raises "fundamental questions about the unique and special relationship between Canada and members of the Armed Forces," and whether an "inadequate compensation scheme" breaches Canada's solemn obligation to those who served the country.
'Profound implications'
The filing says the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision could have profound implications for future military service in Canada and the very operation of Veterans Affairs Canada.
"Those who enlist in military service do so at great personal risk and sacrifice, but do so based on the premise which underlies the social covenant: Should they fall or be injured, the nation and people of Canada will ensure they will be looked after," the filing reads. "The implication of the Court of Appeal's decision is that this solemn obligation does not exist."
Sorochan said the social covenant has been recognized since the First World War, when promises were made to those who served their country. It was, and remains, necessary to build and retain a voluntary citizens' army.
Sorochan said the B.C.appeal court ruling effectively said even if a promise was made, any government could undo it "on a whim."
"I don't think that's much comfort if you're going to put your life on the line when you could take away the promise."
In a news release, Marc Burchell, president of the Equitas Society, said the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling says there is nothing embedded in the law to protect injured veterans.
"This case is about making sure the government of Canada supports our fighting men and women as they must," he said. "The government must either reinstate the old Pension Act, or must make sure compensation for injuries under the New Veterans Charter is as good as – or better – than what they received before."
'Grossly unfair': Disabled veterans take pension battle with Liberals to Supreme Court - Kathleen Harris - 31 Jan 18, 09:03
Case claims federal government breached 'solemn obligation' to care for injured soldier
A group of disabled veterans is taking its legal fight for better pensions to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The six veterans involved in what is called the Equitas case say the federal government has a sacred obligation to care for the country's wounded soldiers, and that the duty was breached in a 2006 overhaul to the compensation regime for those injured in the line of duty.
Mark Campbell, a retired major, and former combat engineer Aaron Bedard, both part of the Equitas suit, are holding a news conference in Ottawa at 10 a.m. ET today to release details of the legal appeal to the Supreme Court. CBCNews.ca is carrying it live.
Campbell said it's a "national disgrace" that the government is spending tax dollars in a legal fight against injured veterans, and "untolerable" that changes to the pension regime have left two standards of compensation for soldiers, depending on when they were injured.
"This is grossly unfair and it has to change," he said.
The overhaul replaced lifelong disability pensions with a lump-sum payment, career training and targeted income support, which the veterans claim was worth less than the previous pension system.
The case, which they hoped to turn into a class-action lawsuit, has been winding its way through the courts since 2012. It was launched when the Conservative government was in power but continued under the Liberals.
Last year the B.C. Court of Appeal struck down the veterans' claim.
Lawyer Don Sorochan, who is representing the Equitas group, hopes the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to that decision, and definitively rule on whether the government has a "social covenant" or sacred obligation, and whether it is enforceable.
"The position taken by the government was astonishing. For them to stand up and say we don't have any special obligation to veterans was completely contrary to everything they had been saying in Parliament, on the election campaign," he told CBC News.
During the 2015 federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to give veterans the option to have a lifelong pension.
Major changes announced
After much frustration and protests, the government announced major changes to the compensation system in December 2017 that would pour about $3.6 billion into veterans' benefits.
But Campbell called that proposal a "sham."
"The new pension for life is nothing more than a shell game," he said.
According to a copy of the court filing to the high court, the case raises "fundamental questions about the unique and special relationship between Canada and members of the Armed Forces," and whether an "inadequate compensation scheme" breaches Canada's solemn obligation to those who served the country.
'Profound implications'
The filing says the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision could have profound implications for future military service in Canada and the very operation of Veterans Affairs Canada.
"Those who enlist in military service do so at great personal risk and sacrifice, but do so based on the premise which underlies the social covenant: Should they fall or be injured, the nation and people of Canada will ensure they will be looked after," the filing reads. "The implication of the Court of Appeal's decision is that this solemn obligation does not exist."
Sorochan said the social covenant has been recognized since the First World War, when promises were made to those who served their country. It was, and remains, necessary to build and retain a voluntary citizens' army.
Sorochan said the B.C.appeal court ruling effectively said even if a promise was made, any government could undo it "on a whim."
"I don't think that's much comfort if you're going to put your life on the line when you could take away the promise."
In a news release, Marc Burchell, president of the Equitas Society, said the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling says there is nothing embedded in the law to protect injured veterans.
"This case is about making sure the government of Canada supports our fighting men and women as they must," he said. "The government must either reinstate the old Pension Act, or must make sure compensation for injuries under the New Veterans Charter is as good as – or better – than what they received before."
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
A look at what the government in the past has provided as part of the obligation to soldiers. A very interesting and long list of programs.
http://wartimecanada.ca/categories/veterans-programs
http://wartimecanada.ca/categories/veterans-programs
- Reaction score
- 2,047
- Points
- 1,160
That's very disappointing, big win for Trudeau.
- Reaction score
- 1,720
- Points
- 1,090
Tcm621 said:
You mean the government that had this to say:
https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/33-social-covenant-canadian-veterans/
BE IT RESOLVED THAT a future Liberal government will uphold the principles of this social covenant in its defence and veterans policies, and will live up to our country’s sacred obligation to care for veterans and their families ...
- Reaction score
- 6,064
- Points
- 1,160
Until the government decides to take care of the people they wounded and families of those killed, I will not be recommending the CAF as employment for anyone. It'll be "Run...as fast as you can......don't look back" :waiting:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
cowboy628 said:
Not to mention, even if Veterans or Veteran supporters vote as a block, they are too thinly distributed to do any damage to a Liberal Party they were unlikely to have voted for in the past anyways. To Veterans, and *some* close family/friends, veterans issues matter. To the general public, not so much.
- Reaction score
- 6,064
- Points
- 1,160
JesseWZ said:
Many Veterans are also gun owners, another block of fragmented voters. Give a few common, overlapping issues and Veterans can be a subset of an overwhelming wave against the policies of the grits.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
recceguy said:
But were largely rural, *conservative* minded folks like gun owners, and largely *conservative* minded folk like active serving CF members and veterans ever likely to vote for the Liberal Party? Traditionally they haven't, and I don't believe they'll feel a loss in vote share. Most of the coalition that coalesces around these issues are already conservative and likely would have voted conservative anyways.
devil39
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 39
- Points
- 330
recceguy said:
Agreed completely. Not unhappy that it is unlikely my two sons will ever be joining.
Loyalty and "unlimited liability" should be two way streets. Not the case anymore.
Not the Canadian Forces I joined almost 35 years ago, and served in for almost 33 years.
My take on it:
For about as far back as we've had a military, there was a gentlemen's agreement between the state and society, and those who step up to serve and put themselves at risk. It didn't need to be written down anywhere, it was just understood as 'the right thing' that the state would look after those injured and disabled in its service. There was no reason to question that.
When the New Veterans Charter came in in 2006, good intentions very quickly got tripped up by political interests, glacial bureaucracy, and senior civil servants pressed to save money. It was obviously and severely flawed, and there have been at least three big layers of band-aids applied since. Some things are now better, others aren't, and plenty of veterans are still receiving compensation well short of pre-2006 disabilities. I won't be breaking that down in detail, but in short this inequity between pre-2006 disability claims and post-2006 ones is what led to the lawsuit.
The real consequence of six years of legal action initiated by veterans against the government is this: The government as its formal policy under both the Liberal and Conservative parties has clearly stated and argued in court that the government does not have any particular duty owed to veterans. They have argued that the crown is not bound by any 'social covenant', or fiduciary duty, and that there is no applicable concept of 'the honour of the crown' in the relationship between the state, and our country's veterans.
And this argument succeeded.
The government won in court. The lawsuit was thrown out, and with it that gentlemen's agreement has been walked away from by the state. The treatment of veterans is now a purely political matter, as malleable as our policies on anything else that crosses a government department's desk. There's now a vacuum where we once had an understanding of how veterans would be regarded by the state.
In effect the courts have said that this is a matter for the legislature. We now have to look to those who would run for office next year, and get a clear commitment about how they will formally codify whatever will replace that now disintegrated relationship. This is a matter for our MPs now, and they need to hear about it.
For about as far back as we've had a military, there was a gentlemen's agreement between the state and society, and those who step up to serve and put themselves at risk. It didn't need to be written down anywhere, it was just understood as 'the right thing' that the state would look after those injured and disabled in its service. There was no reason to question that.
When the New Veterans Charter came in in 2006, good intentions very quickly got tripped up by political interests, glacial bureaucracy, and senior civil servants pressed to save money. It was obviously and severely flawed, and there have been at least three big layers of band-aids applied since. Some things are now better, others aren't, and plenty of veterans are still receiving compensation well short of pre-2006 disabilities. I won't be breaking that down in detail, but in short this inequity between pre-2006 disability claims and post-2006 ones is what led to the lawsuit.
The real consequence of six years of legal action initiated by veterans against the government is this: The government as its formal policy under both the Liberal and Conservative parties has clearly stated and argued in court that the government does not have any particular duty owed to veterans. They have argued that the crown is not bound by any 'social covenant', or fiduciary duty, and that there is no applicable concept of 'the honour of the crown' in the relationship between the state, and our country's veterans.
And this argument succeeded.
The government won in court. The lawsuit was thrown out, and with it that gentlemen's agreement has been walked away from by the state. The treatment of veterans is now a purely political matter, as malleable as our policies on anything else that crosses a government department's desk. There's now a vacuum where we once had an understanding of how veterans would be regarded by the state.
In effect the courts have said that this is a matter for the legislature. We now have to look to those who would run for office next year, and get a clear commitment about how they will formally codify whatever will replace that now disintegrated relationship. This is a matter for our MPs now, and they need to hear about it.
Similar threads
