respect in general

[Roger Langen]

Hello Army

A couple of weeks ago, the Government of Canada "perfected" its appeal against about 10,000 veterans of past wars. I refer to those mentally disabled, or "shell shocked" veterans, whose pensions were fraudulently administered over many long years. A class action, brought by family members, is winding its way back up to the Supreme Court of Canada. While many of these veterans have died, many are still living. Their mental disability prevents them from realizing that they were uniquely exploited as a veteran class, and from speaking on their own behalf. The Government, in the meantime, concedes that it is guilty of "fraud."

However, it does not wish to pay up. The judgment against it is currently at $4.8 billion dollars. The Government's argument has been that the rectification of this claim, despite the recommendation of the Auditor-General to do the right thing, would be a burden on the taxpayer. By continuing to fight with this group of veterans, however, the Government risks increasing the liability to the taxpayer to $7 billion dollars at minimum. The case has now reached the point that even if the Government were in the right, it would be cheaper to settle than continue. The class action itself is prepared to settle at somewhere near $1 billion dollars. The cost of moving forward, win or lose for the Government of Canada, is $1.5 billion dollars.

So what's the hold-up (apart from the robbery of the veterans)? The answer is that no one is looking or paying attention. But isn't the danger pay story in Afghanistan exactly similar? You get sent over on glory and pay; but when you are not serviceable, the attitude shifts. My dad, George Wallace Langen, went to World War II when he was 17. He was the sole survivor of an ambush in Fiumicino in Italy on September 28, 1994, and left for dead in a culvert, as recorded in the official history of the Canadian Army by G.W.L.Nicholson, where he was identified simply as "one wounded Canadian." Although badly wounded, he crawled to a barn where he spent the night with two German teenage soldiers. They shared a cigarette (no English), and then the "enemy" took him to an Allied medical station in the morning, turning themselves in and perhaps saving his life. Unfortunately, my dad ended up on the street in the early 70s, and then collapsed with dementia in 1974, remaining in hospital and without his faculties until his death in 1998. His pension was held in the Consolidated General Revenue account of the Canadian government, along with other mentally disabled veterans' pensions, where it was used to leverage loans for the Government of Canada and earned not a penny of interest for the veterans themselves.

When in opposition, Harper claimed that such treatment was inexcusable and that the honourable thing to do was to settle with this group of veterans. It appears that he has now changed his mind. That is wrong, in my view, not only for him but for all of us.

Remembrance Day is approaching. Is this a site that could make a difference, or would want to?

Roger Langen, Toronto

 

[the 48th regulator]

Well welcome Roger.


I saw your input on CBC,

The situation is slightly different than what you crusaded for, however, your ideas did help the past.

What do you suggest we do for the future?

dileas

tess

 

[Roger Langen]

Responding to Tess: I have been interviewed by the CBC and other media numerous times and have always said the same thing - that respect for veterans comes first. Treating a particularly vulnerable class so shabbily is a discredit to government and, by extension, to Canadians themselves. We should advise our elected representatives to act differently.

What has changed in this case is that the liability to the taxpayer has grown so large that the Government's former argument - that they are refusing to settle for the sake of the taxpayer - is no longer valid. It is now much cheaper for the government to settle than go back to the Supreme Court, even if it wins. If the Government gets back to the Supreme Court and loses, however, the cost to the taxpayer is potentially huge.

The deeper point (and connection with Afghanistan) is - unfortunately - more cynical. Soldiers are valued by their Government when they enlist and serve, particularly in combat. After they have ceased to serve, or have been wounded (or killed), they have less value. In economic terms, their stock has fallen. Remembrance, which is felt keenly by families, is partly a show to keep future markets for enlistment intact.

There is an upside. The current controversy over the suspension of danger pay when a soldier is wounded shows how sensitive the Government is to media attention to perceived wrongs. (And isn't it interesting that this is also about money?) Of course, media attention is tied to current events. Mentally disabled veterans from past wars are old news, and their positions in nursing homes or cemeteries is hardly the stuff of media glamour. But my argument is that Afghanistan will also be past, like Vietnam or World War II, but those many who are young soldiers today will continue to live long after the event, some in disability, some in prolonged stress. Shall we then forget them?

My argument is that the families of all veterans, past and present, along with the patriotic Canadian public, should stand together when it comes to issues of respect for veterans, because they are all engaged in the same great endeavour: service of their country. When a wrong is perpetrated, especially in the context of remembrance, this community should rise up together in protest. Where the media is silent, politicians will still respond to their constituents. The issue is not one of "pity," or handouts; but of a just regard for a job well done, and a just memory for the endangerment of life in the service of country.

I mistyped my dad's injury as dating from September 28, 1994. Of course, those who still remember World War II will know that I meant to type, September 28, 1944.

Roger Langen

 

[Chewie]

I have been a forces member for 26yrs and still have no faith in the government to do the right thing.
There are so many issues that continually come to light, like the pension clawback issue.
However the stance by our politicians always eludes me...Thier getting new vehicles and ships what more do they want.
How about a litte RESPECT and RECOGNITION.

Andy

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The Government's argument has been that the rectification of this claim, despite the recommendation of the Auditor-General to do the right thing, would be a burden on the taxpayer.

Well, heck...just unburden me of another 2.4 B of spending in lieu along the lines of the recent cost-cutting exercise for two years...and don't bother signing up the recipient organizations at the end of it.

 

[McMahon]

I whole heartedly agree with everything already said here.

Veterans, and the elderly in general are the most worthy in society of our recognition and our money. I am more than happy to fork over an extra couple of dollars in taxes so that those who have bravely fought more this country can live out their lives in comfort and with the greatest degree of integrity.

Write to your MP write to your MPP write to the Legion and write to Veterans Affairs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

BTW, does anyone else find it humorous that the federal government is basically arguing that "Yes, we should pay, but it will be a financial hardship on the poor stressed taxpayer" when governments have been low-balling surpluses for several years now?  Where is the burden on the taxpayer when there are unexpected billions in the kitty at the end of the year?  I'm waiting...is the cheque in the mail?

 

[Kat Stevens]

Funny, everyone took a giant shiz on Ralph Klein when he gave us our money back... 8)

 

[Meridian]

The thing with politics is that unless you get a significant (and I mean significant) amount of Canadians to shift significant amounts of political capital over to this cause versus, say....  4 billion for childcare or education or healthcare (though I think healthcare is probably sliding a bit, haven't seen the poll numbers), you will never get the boys on the hill to agree to a 4 billion dollar payment at the expense of something else that Canadians want more.

 

[Roger Langen]

Two clarifications:

The Government has only ONE political choice: To settle or not to settle. If it takes the latter course, as it appears now headed, it hopes to get off scot-free. But it is currently on the wrong end of the decision and must hope for some luck at the Supreme Court. The government does NOT have a choice about to pay or not to pay, unless - surprise, surprise - it wins.

The second point concerns cost. The cost if the government loses is huge - between $7 and 10 billion dollars. If it chooses to settle on the other hand, it can control the payout to something on the order of $1 billion dollars. This is the responsible route in my view. There is no question, then, of imposing a burden of $3 or 4 billion dollars on other programs.

I hope this helps. The support being expressed here is very encouraging, by the way. Thank you.

Roger Langen

 

[Cloud Cover]

The thing with politics is that unless you get a significant (and I mean significant) amount of Canadians to shift significant amounts of political capital over to this cause versus, say....  4 billion for childcare or education or healthcare (though I think healthcare is probably sliding a bit, haven't seen the poll numbers), you will never get the boys on the hill to agree to a 4 billion dollar payment at the expense of something else that Canadians want more.

hmm. Lets give all these people everything they want, then tax it back and pay the vets, then tax that back and pay someone else. There are lots of outstretched hands, but who wants to be taxed [or overtaxed] to pay?  Who wants their bridges to collapse, hospitals services to further erode, pot-holes turn into craters and seaways and canals be closed. Not me.  

This is all about money, and has nothing to with respect so much as wilful disrespect. Sadly, in my view, the vets will not get a dime until every native claim or pay equity suit is settled. In a few years time, Canada will no longer be able to afford current obligations because they will still be getting sued for past injustices and/or re-injustices [for some, one claim is never enough].

An amnesty is going to be needed. Instead of having a few thousand claims, we'll have one gigantic non-paying injustice so that everybody has a chance to be equally pissed off.  
 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I really must read more tonight on this "claim" but I am curious of how long it has been going on. My Father was just old enough for the last two years of WW2 and he has been gone for 9 years now.

Is this suit to get money for Vets or just a grab by their descendants?  I had a Great-Uncle who lost a huge farm, on now developed land, in the 50's for some "back taxes", do I now sue, *cough* "on his behalf" when he has been gone for 25 years?

 

[Yrys]

do I now sue, *cough* "on his behalf" when he has been gone for 25 years?

If you have money to trow away, you can try...
After all, some autochtones are doing it for treaties signed
300 years ago or so...

 

[probum non poenitet]

Forgive me for being blunt and cynical, but this touches a raw nerve:

If you are advocating for more money for our Veterans' Hospitals, for Fisher House in Landstuhl, for prosthetics, therapy, and re-training for those currently wounded, for care of all injured vets, past and present, you have my strong support. Bless them all.

If, however, you are drumming up a 'celebrity endorsement' of our recently wounded so you can embarrass Harper and eventually collect a six-figure cheque, which has no guarantees of ever going within 100 miles of a real veteran, you do not have my support.

Harsh, but there it is.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>If, however, you are drumming up a 'celebrity endorsement' of our recently wounded so you can embarrass Harper and eventually collect a six-figure cheque, which has no guarantees of ever going within 100 miles of a real veteran, you do not have my support.

I am not sure I understand the details correctly, but if this amounts to benefits to which veterans were entitled (ie. not compensation after the fact of an injustice) and should have been paid, then it must be paid to them or to their estates.

 

[IrishCanuck]

I respect the cause, I respect the claim, and I respect the system.

It can't drag out in court forever, something will have to happen.

 

[probum non poenitet]

I am not sure I understand the details correctly, but if this amounts to benefits to which veterans were entitled (ie. not compensation after the fact of an injustice) and should have been paid, then it must be paid to them or to their estates.

You are probably right, thus I am probably wrong ...

I'm just weary of so many groups claiming to have the interests of our wounded at heart, when really they are grinding out their own agendas ... likely I'm shooting at the wrong duck on this issue. Apologies.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Brad said "IF"......

 

[Roger Langen]

The most interesting reading on this case is to be found in the judgments themselves. They are long, and occasionally arcane; but for the most part they are quite readable. If you wish to see the text of these judgments, go to: www.veteransinterest.org.

The common theme in all of the judgments - from the Ontario Superior Court, to the Ontario Court of Appeal, through to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003 (and now we are working our way back again) - has been the same: The Government of Canada's behaviour with respect to these veterans is "reprehensible," constituting, under any reasonable interpretation of trust law, "equitable fraud." The Government of Canada now accepts this judgment.

Only mentally disabled veterans could have been treated this way; anyone else would have had the necessary brain to object. The families did not object because in most cases the veterans - and their pension accounts - were in the government's care. Any family member, like my mother, who asked how the veteran's finances were being managed was always told the same thing: It's not for you to know. My mother, who like so many farm wives had been a bookkeeper, discovered the abuse independently in 1987, a year after the Auditor-General complained about the Government's failure to act as an honourable trustee. We were unaware of the Auditor-General's opinion. In our own consternation and outrage, we moved successfully to obtain power of attorney over my father's affairs and put his finances to some kind of productive use (in his name) for the benefit of himself and his family. We did not seek damages. My mother was of the opinion that if you try to fight the Government, you can only lose. She still feels that way. She expects no result out of the current action. She is also proud of the life that she has lived. (She was 80 this past September.)

As for the families or descendants making a grab for money, this is the position that has been taken by the National Council of Veterans Affairs. The organization was initially supportive, but then suddenly pulled its opening press release and adopted an opposite stance. Needless to say, the organization, which has a variety of worthwhile projects, is dependent, like any lobby group, on government largesse. Veterans' wives or widows or children, incidentally, are hardly "descendants."

In Ontario, class action law "includes" all affected families as potential beneficiaries, whether they like it or not. One complaint from a single family member, well motivated as it happens, led to the class action. Everyone else is being carried along; you can't opt out. Nor do the class action lawyers, who have worked pro bono to this point, have any direct control over fees. A kind of rough formula exists in Canada for how successful class actions are resolved; it is overseen by the presiding judge and is designed to protect both the members of the class and the law firm from too little or too much. As it happens, it is the class action law firm that is promoting the taxpayer-friendly settlement, to its own cost. Again, the families have no control over that; we are courteously informed of developments, but have no power to give direction.

I'm not sure what celebrity endorsement means. It's the media that makes hay over current events. My point is that veterans are a common class through time, and that the media - and everyone else - owe them the same respect as they would pay Audie Murphy for falling off his horse brilliantly tomorrow in some fine and remote cause. Celebrate him tomorrow, but respect him always.

This case is about nothing more than righting a wrong on behalf of the Canadian uniform. It is not competing with tanks or other budgets for other valid military needs, all which I support.

As for Stephen Harper, I repeat: When he was in opposition, he was consistently critical of Liberal government failure to settle this case in the veterans' favour. I really did expect him to follow through on his commitment in this regard; but it is clear that the government lawyers are working hard to adjust his views. We need to get him back on the ground of respect for military service. We need to tell him that. He may yet respond.

Again, thanks for your opinions and this time out, tough questions!

Roger Langen

 

[Roger Langen]

Correction: I wrote National Council of Veterans Affairs. I meant, Associations.

On the property point made by Brad Sallows: Thank you. This is precisely the position taken by the courts. The NCVA continues to evade this point.

To PNP: We don't mind being a duck. We're used to it. Most of the shots taken at us are easily ducked.