HomeSome disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
+2
Masefield
Thunder
6 posters
Page 1 of 1
Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Thunder Thu 21 Feb 2019, 1:40 pm
February 21, 2019
WATCH ABOVE: Pressing veterans affairs minister on access to treatment for vets
OTTAWA – While most disabled veterans will see a small boost in financial support when the Trudeau government implements a new pension system in April, a new analysis shows some of the most severely injured will end up with less than under the current system.
And the financial benefits available for all under the Liberals’ pension plan will fall far short of those provided to veterans before the federal government replaced a longstanding disability pension with the current system in 2006.
Those are among the findings of a new study by Canada’s parliamentary budget officer, which comes about a month before the new Pension for Life is implemented and amid anger about the new system within the veterans’ community.
The federal Liberals had promised during the last election to reinstate the pre-2006 pension system, but instead introduced their own version.
While the budget watchdog found that the current system and the Liberals’ Pension for Life are less generous for disabled veterans than the pre-2006 pension system, they are also far less expensive.
The government would end up paying $40 billion to provide pre-2006 pensions for all current veterans, compared to $22 billion under the current system and $25 billion under the Pension for Life.
Thunder- Registered User
- Posts : 319
Join date : 2018-10-31
Re: Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Masefield Thu 21 Feb 2019, 2:16 pm
Some disabled veterans to receive less financial support under Liberal plan: PBO
Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, February 21, 2019
OTTAWA -- While most disabled veterans will see a small boost in financial support when the Trudeau government implements a new pension system in April, a new analysis shows some of the most severely injured will end up with less than under the current system.
And the financial benefits available for all under the Liberals' pension plan will fall far short of those provided to veterans before the federal government replaced a long-standing disability pension with the current system in 2006.
Those are among the findings of a new study by Canada's parliamentary budget officer, which comes about a month before the new Pension for Life is implemented and amid anger about the system within the veterans community.
The federal Liberals had promised during the last election to reinstate lifelong disability pensions after many veterans complained the lump-sum payment and other benefits that replaced it was far less generous.
While that was widely interpreted as bringing back the pre-2006 pension system, the Trudeau government instead introduced its own version, which will come into effect on April 1.
That version has been blasted by many veterans as a betrayal of the Liberals' original commitment.
In his analysis released Thursday, parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux confirmed what many veterans have alleged: that the Liberals' Pension for Life doesn't offer the same level of support as the pre-2006 Pension Act.
"From the perspective of the veteran, virtually all clients would be better off if they were to receive the benefits of the Pension Act," reads the report released Thursday.
Exactly how big is the difference? The report says disabled veterans would have received on average 24 per cent more with the pre-2006 pension than the Liberals' new plan.
Giroux did find that most veterans will see a six-per-cent increase in financial support under the Pension for Life than the current system, which was implemented with all-party support in 2006.
But about five per cent of veterans who apply for benefits after April 1, when the new system comes into effect, will actually receive less under the new system -- notably the most severely injured.
That is because the government did away with a monthly, lifelong benefit designed to compensate those veterans whose service-related injury or illness prevents them from being able to work.
The change only affects veterans who apply for benefits after April 1, when the new system comes into effect.
While the budget watchdog found that the current system and the Liberals' Pension for Life are less generous for disabled veterans than the pre-2006 pension system, they are also far less expensive.
The government would end up paying $40 billion to provide pre-2006 pensions for all current veterans, compared to $22 billion under the current system and $25 billion under the Pension for Life.
Masefield- Benefits Coordinator
- Posts : 234
Join date : 2018-03-28
Re: Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Masefield Thu 21 Feb 2019, 2:47 pm
PBO finds benefits overhaul will shortchange recently and severely wounded vets
Budget officer's findings could prove to be legal fodder for veterans who unsuccessfully sued Ottawa last year
Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Feb 21, 2019
The Liberal government's incoming system of benefits for injured veterans will be slightly more generous than the one it replaces, but it will leave the most severely disabled in worse financial shape, Canada's parliamentary budget officer said Thursday.
The report from Yves Giroux is likely to add fuel to the heated (and sometimes nasty) political, legal and social debate about how adequately former soldiers, sailors and aircrew are compensated when they are wounded in the line of duty.
The analysis compared the three separate benefit regimes — the one that existed prior to 2006, the New Veterans Charter that replaced it and the new system being introduced by the Liberal government — and found soldiers were being better compensated by far under the pre-2006 system.
"From the perspective of the veteran, virtually all clients would be better off if they received the benefits of the (pre-2006) Pension Act," the report says.
The budget officer calculated the value of each benefits system in current dollars and found the old Pension Act system was the most costly for the federal government, at approximately $50 billion. The New Veterans Charter, operational under the Conservatives, came in at $29 billion, while the new Liberal regime is projected to cost $32 billion.
The findings are expected to vindicate critics who have long argued that the old system of lifetime pensions, instituted following the world wars, was more generous.
The difference between that regime and the New Veterans Charter — introduced in 2006 by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin and championed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives — was the subject a major court case involving veterans of the war in Afghanistan.
Pensions for the wounded were replaced with workman's compensation-style lump sum payments under the charter.
In a politically-charged Federal Court case, ex-soldiers claimed the system introduced in 2006 was discriminatory under the Charter of Rights because it didn't provide the same level of benefits and support as the old pension system. Federal lawyers argued Ottawa had no special legal obligation to injured veterans and their families.
Many say the case swayed the veterans' vote toward the Liberals in the 2015 federal election, when Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau pledged to give veterans the option of a pension or a lump sum payment.
That new system is due to be implemented on April 1 and the budget officer said most former military members in the system will see an increase.
To create the new system, the Liberal government rolled together a series of different benefits. Giroux found that one particular stipend — known as the Career Impact Allowance — is being eliminated entirely.
He said that will have an enormous impact on the most severely disabled veterans who join the new system after it's implemented.
"The five per cent that have the most severe impairment, they'll be the only, the main losers of the transition to the pension-for-life regime," said Giroux, who added he's uncertain whether it was an oversight on the government's part or an intentional part of the redesign.
He said the system, even in its simplified form under the Liberals, is extraordinarily complicated and he can't imagine how veterans feel when they're faced with it.
"The suite of benefits available to veterans is very, very complex," he said. "Myself, having a tax background, I find this more difficult than the income tax system.
"So it may be oversight. It may be intentional. I have no idea."
Sean Bruyea, a long-time veterans advocate and frequent critic of the changes made in 2006, was largely satisfied with the report and said it proves what he's said all along.
"When we have agencies like this, it renews my faith that government can work for veterans and Canadians," said Bruyea, who got into a nasty public spat and a court case with former veterans minister Seamus O'Regan over the benefits numbers.
In article published on Feb. 26, 2018 in the Ottawa-based publication The Hill Times, O'Regan accused Bruyea of "stating mistruths" about the Liberal pension-for-life plan.
"Let me be clear— NO veteran will receive less than what they are receiving today and most will be receiving more," O'Regan wrote."
Bruyea suggested the budget officer's distinction between those who are in the system now and those who will enter in the future is important to remember when parsing O'Regan's words.
"This independent report verifies for veterans that, contrary to what politicians and bureaucrats have said, veterans are not greedy. They're not entitled. They're not angry," he said. "And if they are feeling angry, it's justified."
Another important point, Bruyea said, is the comparison with the pre-2006 system of benefits, which is at least $18 billion more expensive than the more recent benefits systems.
The report demonstrates governments of both political stripes were focused on saving money, he said.
Veterans Affairs "wanted to prove to Treasury Board that they could reduce the costs of this future liability," he said.
Giroux would not comment on whether he believed the federal government set out in the beginning to save money, but noted the benefits defined for veterans following the world wars were instituted at a time when Canada's overall social safety net was not as generous.
Masefield- Benefits Coordinator
- Posts : 234
Join date : 2018-03-28
Re: Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Guest Thu 21 Feb 2019, 3:12 pm
The cost differential between three regimes of Veterans Benefits
Summary
Several parliamentarians requested that the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) prepare an estimate of the fiscal cost of each of these regimes over the medium term.
Using data from Veterans Affairs Canada, PBO estimated the overall fiscal costs to the government on a net present value (NPV) basis for the existing cohort of beneficiaries and for projected new beneficiaries during the period 2019-2023.
PBO found that the Pension Act regime is the most generous for the veterans and the most expensive for the federal government. The Pension for Life regime is slightly more generous than the Veterans Well-being Act regime.
Most, but not all, veterans will be financially better off under the new Pension for Life regime compared to the existing Veterans Well-being Act.
While all current recipients of disability benefits will receive an equal or greater amount with the new regime, PBO estimates that about 5 per cent of future recipients would have been better off under the Veterans Well-being Act. Moreover, 3 per cent of new entrants would be greatly disadvantaged under Pension for Life as they would, on average, have received around $300 thousand more in financial support from the existing regime.
This is in part related to the elimination of the Career Impact Allowance Supplement (CIAS), which is offered to veterans with severe and permanent impairment and diminished earning capacities.
https://pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/veterans_benefits
There is a pdf file link on the PBO's website that links to the report.
Summary
Several parliamentarians requested that the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) prepare an estimate of the fiscal cost of each of these regimes over the medium term.
Using data from Veterans Affairs Canada, PBO estimated the overall fiscal costs to the government on a net present value (NPV) basis for the existing cohort of beneficiaries and for projected new beneficiaries during the period 2019-2023.
PBO found that the Pension Act regime is the most generous for the veterans and the most expensive for the federal government. The Pension for Life regime is slightly more generous than the Veterans Well-being Act regime.
Most, but not all, veterans will be financially better off under the new Pension for Life regime compared to the existing Veterans Well-being Act.
While all current recipients of disability benefits will receive an equal or greater amount with the new regime, PBO estimates that about 5 per cent of future recipients would have been better off under the Veterans Well-being Act. Moreover, 3 per cent of new entrants would be greatly disadvantaged under Pension for Life as they would, on average, have received around $300 thousand more in financial support from the existing regime.
This is in part related to the elimination of the Career Impact Allowance Supplement (CIAS), which is offered to veterans with severe and permanent impairment and diminished earning capacities.
https://pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/veterans_benefits
There is a pdf file link on the PBO's website that links to the report.
Guest- Guest
Re: Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Delta Thu 21 Feb 2019, 8:51 pm
PBO finds benefits overhaul will shortchange recently and severely wounded vets
Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Feb 21, 2019
Murray Brewster · CBC News · Posted: Feb 21, 2019
Delta- Registered User
- Posts : 188
Join date : 2018-03-02
Re: Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Delta Thu 21 Feb 2019, 9:30 pm
BONOKOSKI: Short-changing our injured veterans is not cut-away news
MARK BONOKOSKI February 21, 2019
MARK BONOKOSKI February 21, 2019
Portrait of Bruce Moncur (age 23) who still has a scare on his head after he was injured on duty with the Canadian Army in Afganistan.
Delta- Registered User
- Posts : 188
Join date : 2018-03-02
Re: Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Silveray Sun 24 Feb 2019, 5:29 pm
Feds face fresh fire over treatment of disabled veterans Feb 24, 2019
The report by parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux appeared to confirm what many within the veterans' community have long maintained, namely that the benefits for those leaving the Forces today are less generous than was available to previous generations
OTTAWA — The Trudeau government faced fresh fire over its treatment of disabled veterans on Thursday after a new analysis by Parliament's budgetary watchdog found an incoming system of benefits will shortchange some of the most severely injured former service members.
The report by parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux also appeared to confirm what many within the veterans' community have long maintained, namely that the benefits for those leaving the Forces today are less generous than was available to previous generations.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, who is acting as the veterans affairs minister following Jody Wilson-Raybould's resignation last week, defended the Liberals' plan, saying it will address many of the shortcomings of previous systems.
"This system that we are putting into place looks after our veterans in a much more comprehensive way," he said. "This is about listening to them and are we delivering for them … and where we need to make changes, that's what this new program also allows."
Yet the budget watchdog's findings were quickly seized upon by veterans and their advocates as vindication after many had expressed anger at the Liberals and their plan, saying it fell far short of ensuring equality between different generations of veterans.
"This validates and vindicates everything we were trying to do," said retired major Mark Campbell, who lost both legs in Afghanistan and led an ultimately unsuccessful legal fight to get the federal government to bring back a previous disability pension for veterans.
"It's nothing more than a cost-saving measure on the part of the government of Canada cleverly disguised behind a bunch of numbers and bafflegab."
Giroux's analysis looked at three regimes implemented for veterans over the years: a lifelong disability pension established after the First World War; a lump-sum payment and suite of benefits that replaced the pension in 2006; and the Liberals' own plan, which will come into effect on April 1.
For all veterans, the result was found to be the same: the pre-2006 pension was the most generous. How much more? The report says disabled veterans would receive on average 1.5 times more over their lifetimes under the pre-2006 pension than the Liberals' plan.
"From the perspective of the veteran, virtually all clients would be better off if they were to receive the benefits of the (pre-2006) Pension Act," reads Giroux's analysis, which was produced following a request of several MPs and senators.
The federal Liberals promised during the last election to reinstate lifelong disability pensions after many veterans complained the lump-sum payment and other benefits that replaced it was less generous.
That was widely interpreted as bringing back the pre-2006 pension system, which was replaced by a lump-sum payment and suite of rehabilitation programs and other financial supports called the New Veterans Charter.
But the Trudeau government instead introduced its own version, which will come into effect on April 1. That version has been blasted by many veterans as a betrayal of the Liberals' campaign pledge.
The watchdog did find that most veterans will see a six- to 24-per-cent boost in financial support when the Liberals' incoming plan, which includes a pension option, replaces the current scheme, depending on whether they are already receiving benefits or not.
But some severely injured veterans who apply for benefits after April 1, when the new system comes into effect, will receive less because the government did away with a benefit designed to compensate those veterans who can't work because of their injury or illness.
"So that's why the most severely disabled veterans will be the losers for that transition," Giroux told reporters after the report's release.
"We didn't get a sense of why or whether it was intentional. What I can say is that the suite of benefits available to veterans is very, very complex. … So it may be an oversight, it may be intentional. I have no idea."
Thursday's report was also the first to put a dollar figure to the three systems, saying it would cost $40 billion to provide pre-2006 pensions for all current veterans, compared to $22 billion under the current system and $25 billion under the Pension for Life.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came under fire last year after he said Campbell and five other veterans who had launched an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the government to reinstate the pre-2006 pension system were asking for too much.
Giroux's report appears to confirm fears that the Liberal plan was either a "slapdash effort" or a "shell game" aimed at veterans, said Brian Forbes, chair of the National Council of Veterans Associations, which represents more than 60 veteran groups.
The government should take the opportunity to fix its plan by implementing several recommendations from a ministerial advisory group that he and Campbell sit on, Forbes added — warning the Liberals could hear from veterans at the ballot box in October if they don't.
— Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter
Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
Note to readers: This is a corrected story. A previous version provided an incorrect number for the difference in benefits between the pre-2006 pension and the Liberals' plan.
Silveray- Registered User
- Posts : 363
Join date : 2017-10-22
Re: Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Oliver Tue 26 Feb 2019, 1:59 pm
Pension For Life Q&A | VeteransAffairsCa
VeteransAffairsCa
Published on Mar 20, 2018
VeteransAffairsCa
Published on Mar 20, 2018
Financial security supports overall well-being. Pension for Life for Veterans improves how Veterans can receive key financial benefits.
Oliver- Benefits Coordinator
- Posts : 226
Join date : 2018-02-28
Re: Some disabled veterans to get less cash under Liberals’ new pension plan
by Lincoln Mon 04 Mar 2019, 8:34 am
Parliamentary Budget Officer says the government saved tens of billions by abandoning old Pensions Act for disabled veterans
GLORIA GALLOWAY PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 21, 2019
The federal government put itself on track to save tens of billions of dollars over the lifetimes of disabled veterans – and significantly reduce benefits it pays them – when it replaced the old Pension Act with the New Veterans Charter in 2006, says a new report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
In addition, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux says, while most disabled veterans will get a small increase in their lifetime benefits when the government’s new Pensions For Life program takes effect on April 1, the most severely disabled vets will get less than they would have if the benefits remained unchanged. About 3 per cent of veterans will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars each between the day they retire and the day they die.
Veterans with the most severe impairments “will be the main losers of the transition to the Pension For Life regime,” Mr. Giroux told reporters after the release of the report on Thursday morning. That’s because the government will remove the Career Impact Allowance Supplement that pays $1,145.36 every month to highly impaired vets with diminished earning capacity.
Veterans have been saying since 2006, when the New Veterans Charter took effect, that the plan paid disabled former soldiers much less than the tax-free monthly payments awarded under the old Pension Act.
The aim of the Charter, which relied heavily on lump-sum payments to compensate for disabilities, was to move to an approach based more on rehabilitation than monetary compensation. But it left less money in the pockets of veterans who applied for benefits after April 1, 2006.
Six severely disabled veterans of Afghanistan took the government to court in 2012 demanding that they receive compensation equal to that paid to veterans who applied for benefits before the Charter became law. Justin Trudeau campaigned with them in 2015 and promised to bring back the lifetime pensions should his Liberals win power.
But the veterans – who lost their case last year when it went to the Supreme Court – say the Pensions for Life that were introduced by the Liberal government in late 2017 do not come close to meeting what is given to Pension Act vets. And the PBO report proves them right.
Had the Pension Act remained in place, the PBO says the government would have spent $50-billion over the lifetimes of veterans who are currently in the system and of those who will apply for benefits over the next five years. The introduction of the New Veterans Charter – now called the Veterans Well-being Act – cut that figure to $29-billion, the PBO says.
The Pensions For Life will increase it slightly to $32-billion.
Harjit Sajjan, who is now both Defence and Veterans Affairs Minister after the resignation from cabinet last week of former veterans minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, said the new program will look at all of the potential needs of veterans.
“When it comes to our veterans, our government is absolutely committed to making sure that we look after them. We need to make sure that we went through a very thorough assessment, talked to veterans’ groups, talk to veterans to make sure that we’re meeting their needs,” Mr. Sajjan told reporters. “We knew that the Pension Act itself didn’t look at the totality of the current veterans. So that’s one of the reasons we had to look at the uniqueness to each veteran. And that’s why the Pensions For Life is so important.”
One of the people who has been the most critical, both of the New Veterans Charter and of the planned Pensions For Life, is veterans advocate Sean Bruyea.
He has launched a defamation suit against Seamus O’Regan, the Indigenous Services Minister who had the veterans’ portfolio prior to Ms. Wilson-Raybould. Mr. O’Regan accused him of “stating mistruths,” and making “numerous other errors” after Mr. Bruyea wrote a column last year saying the Pensions For Life will pay some veterans less than those who are already in the system – and much less than what is given to veterans such as him who fall under the old Pension Act.
Mr. Bruyea said he felt vindicated after the release of the PBO report.
“On average, there’s a small increase for the vast majority of veterans," Mr. Bruyea said, “but those are not the ones that have the most needs. The ones that have the most needs, the most severely injured veterans, will be worse off under this Pensions for Life.”
GLORIA GALLOWAY PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 21, 2019
The federal government put itself on track to save tens of billions of dollars over the lifetimes of disabled veterans – and significantly reduce benefits it pays them – when it replaced the old Pension Act with the New Veterans Charter in 2006, says a new report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
In addition, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux says, while most disabled veterans will get a small increase in their lifetime benefits when the government’s new Pensions For Life program takes effect on April 1, the most severely disabled vets will get less than they would have if the benefits remained unchanged. About 3 per cent of veterans will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars each between the day they retire and the day they die.
Veterans with the most severe impairments “will be the main losers of the transition to the Pension For Life regime,” Mr. Giroux told reporters after the release of the report on Thursday morning. That’s because the government will remove the Career Impact Allowance Supplement that pays $1,145.36 every month to highly impaired vets with diminished earning capacity.
Veterans have been saying since 2006, when the New Veterans Charter took effect, that the plan paid disabled former soldiers much less than the tax-free monthly payments awarded under the old Pension Act.
The aim of the Charter, which relied heavily on lump-sum payments to compensate for disabilities, was to move to an approach based more on rehabilitation than monetary compensation. But it left less money in the pockets of veterans who applied for benefits after April 1, 2006.
Six severely disabled veterans of Afghanistan took the government to court in 2012 demanding that they receive compensation equal to that paid to veterans who applied for benefits before the Charter became law. Justin Trudeau campaigned with them in 2015 and promised to bring back the lifetime pensions should his Liberals win power.
But the veterans – who lost their case last year when it went to the Supreme Court – say the Pensions for Life that were introduced by the Liberal government in late 2017 do not come close to meeting what is given to Pension Act vets. And the PBO report proves them right.
Had the Pension Act remained in place, the PBO says the government would have spent $50-billion over the lifetimes of veterans who are currently in the system and of those who will apply for benefits over the next five years. The introduction of the New Veterans Charter – now called the Veterans Well-being Act – cut that figure to $29-billion, the PBO says.
The Pensions For Life will increase it slightly to $32-billion.
Harjit Sajjan, who is now both Defence and Veterans Affairs Minister after the resignation from cabinet last week of former veterans minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, said the new program will look at all of the potential needs of veterans.
“When it comes to our veterans, our government is absolutely committed to making sure that we look after them. We need to make sure that we went through a very thorough assessment, talked to veterans’ groups, talk to veterans to make sure that we’re meeting their needs,” Mr. Sajjan told reporters. “We knew that the Pension Act itself didn’t look at the totality of the current veterans. So that’s one of the reasons we had to look at the uniqueness to each veteran. And that’s why the Pensions For Life is so important.”
One of the people who has been the most critical, both of the New Veterans Charter and of the planned Pensions For Life, is veterans advocate Sean Bruyea.
He has launched a defamation suit against Seamus O’Regan, the Indigenous Services Minister who had the veterans’ portfolio prior to Ms. Wilson-Raybould. Mr. O’Regan accused him of “stating mistruths,” and making “numerous other errors” after Mr. Bruyea wrote a column last year saying the Pensions For Life will pay some veterans less than those who are already in the system – and much less than what is given to veterans such as him who fall under the old Pension Act.
Mr. Bruyea said he felt vindicated after the release of the PBO report.
“On average, there’s a small increase for the vast majority of veterans," Mr. Bruyea said, “but those are not the ones that have the most needs. The ones that have the most needs, the most severely injured veterans, will be worse off under this Pensions for Life.”
Lincoln- Advocate Coordinator
- Posts : 195
Join date : 2018-05-11
Sponsored content
Similar topics» Justin Trudeau Releases Liberals' Plan for Veterans
» Trudeau government cuts $1.8 billion in pension funding to disabled Canadian veterans
» Pension for Life plan to help veterans
» Liberals' new 'pension for life' for veterans fails to live up to campaign promises
» Liberals' new 'pension for life' for veterans fails to live up to campaign promises
» Trudeau government cuts $1.8 billion in pension funding to disabled Canadian veterans
» Pension for Life plan to help veterans
» Liberals' new 'pension for life' for veterans fails to live up to campaign promises
» Liberals' new 'pension for life' for veterans fails to live up to campaign promises
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum