DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER REGULATIONS


8 August 2011 

To: Hon. Steven Blaney
Minister of Veterans Affairs
 
Suzanne Levesque
Director, Cabinet & Legislative Affairs
Veterans Affairs Canada
 
CWO Guy Parent
Veterans Ombudsman

Reference A:  “Regulations Amending the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Regulations”, The Canadian Gazette, Part 1, date: 9 July 2011, pp. 2254-2276. (http://www.canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2011/2011-07-09/pdf/g1-14528.pdf).

Presented by:

Walter Callaghan
Disabled Veteran
Former Officer, Canadian Forces Health Services

Following the publication of the proposed regulatory amendments to the New Veterans Charter (as detailed in the above-listed reference), and following on the comments provided by CWO Parent on these proposed amendments (http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/blog-blogue/comment-commentaire-eng.cfm?101#comment_view), I submit the following comments for review and consideration.

Earnings Loss Benefit

It is all well and good that the base level of the Earnings Loss Benefits (ELB) will be increased to a minimum of $40,000 per year for disabled veterans of the Regular Force (RegF) and for Reservists (ResF) who were injured while on CL-B (>180d) or CL-C contracts, but why is there continued discrimination against ResF veterans who were injured while on CL-B (<180d) or CL-A contracts?  Why are these separate categories being promulgated when every single one of us who served accepted the same risks and unlimited liability that is required to function as a member of the Canadian Forces?  More specifically, why is Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) using these categories when the Canadian Forces itself sees no difference in type of service once a member of the CF becomes disabled (for example, by providing an ELB equivalent to full-time contract to all ResF members upon their becoming disabled)?

Yes, the proposed regulatory changes will increase the ELB for the second group of ResF veterans from a deemed salary of $2000/month to $2700/month, and then the ELB is calculated at 75% of this deemed salary, but this change does not provide an adequate level of financial support to disabled ResF veterans.

To use myself as an example: prior to my 3B (medical) release from the Canadian Forces, my income was approximately $3600/month (gross) or approximately $2400/month (net).  Since my date of release, I have been in receipt of ELB through SISIP (the precursor program to VAC’s ELB), with a deemed pre-release salary of $2000/month, calculated to 75% as $1500/month (gross) or $1100/month (net); with the proposed changes, this ELB will be a deemed pre-release salary of $2700/month, calculated to 75% as $2025/month (gross) or approximately $1450/month (net).

Within Ref A, it is clearly stated that: 

“The increases in income implied by the regulatory proposal will result in groups of individuals moving from their current income level, to one which more adequately allows them to cover their basic needs without creating a disincentive to wellness. Analysis conducted for the proposed amendments demonstrates that the financial well-being of veterans will be improved to a point which is likely to result in an overall increase in their subjective well-being” (Ref A, p.2256); and

 “A minimum level of income is necessary to ensure that basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing can be met. There are various ways to calculate this amount and many views on how poverty and low income can be conceptualized. The Statistics Canada Low Income Cut-off (LICO) estimates a family after-tax income threshold at $37,000 for 2008. Similarly, the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada “Market Basket Measure” (MBM) determined $37,000 to be the minimum required to ensure that earnings loss benefit recipients’ income remains above LICO with adequate disposable income” (Ref A, p.2260).

The proposed regulatory changes outlined in Ref A translate to a net ELB of $18,000/year or a gross ELB of $24,750/year for ResF veterans; neither amount comes close to the Statistics Canada LICO or the HRSDC’s MBM!  Given that the declared intent of the ELB increase is to provide financial security to disabled veterans in an effort to facilitate recovery and reintegration into civilian society, I am interested in an explanation on how such a substandard level of financial support to disabled veterans of the ResF can be justified.

Further, what is not explained is how these regulatory changes to ELB will affect the first two years post-release, when ELB is provided through SISIP, not through VAC.  Will these regulatory changes be applied to this time period, or will this most vulnerable period of time be subject to the current enforced poverty that currently exists?

Disability Award

I continue to maintain my objection towards the change from a monthly life-long “pension” to the Lump Sum version of the Disability Award, as enacted through the New Veterans Charter.  Given that the Lump Sum version is equivalent to 100 months under the old “pension” system, it is clear that this change was meant to be a cost-limiting (and insulting) exercise on the part of VAC, at the expense of the well-being of those of us who became injured as a result of our service to Canada.  While the change in payment method (from single to multiple payments) may benefit some veterans who are subject to this program, given that the average “pay-out” under the Lump Sum system is roughly $30,000 (only a handful of disabled soldiers have received the maximum of $286k), it is not clear how spreading that paltry pittance across several years can benefit such recipients.

 Militi Succurrimus

Walter Callaghan
Disabled Veteran
Former Officer, Canadian Forces Health Services
 
COMMENT by Cpl (Ret) Sylvain Chartrand CD ResF
UNFICYP 90 Roto 54
UNPROFOR 93 Roto 1

Let it also be known that VAC is applying an article of law which does not exist. 

18. Subject to section 21 and for the purpose of subsection 19(1) of the Act, the imputed income of a veteran referred to in subsection 8(1) of the Act is equal to 

4. (iv) during Class A Reserve Service or Class B Reserve Service of no more than 180 days, $2,700. 

The Canadian Forces Ombudsman has clearly stated that a Class B -180 days is not defined in the Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&Os) and therefore is invalid and illegal. There are currently 63 Reserve members Class B -180 receiving ELB. It could be easily fix if there is a will to do so. I just can’t wait till a member of either of the two reserve units in the riding of Minister Blaney steps in his office and complains about this.

Advertisements

About Bonnie Toews and John Christiansen

Bonnie's Blog Posts invite our readers and free spirits everywhere to share life's adventures with us. I talk about writing my novels, reading books, chatting with other writers and John's and my journeys around the world. We welcome your anecdotes to our experiences and discussions.
This entry was posted in Afghanistan vets, Canadian Armed Forces, estrangement from family, federal government, Homecoming Vets, physical disability, social workers, veterans' affairs, veterans' assistance programs and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER REGULATIONS

  1. Murray Scott says:

    There is a plan in place:
    In early August I inquired by way of complaint to the Ombudsman’s Office with respect to the Reserve Forces and Classification of members like myself who fell through the cracks since we were medically released in the late 60’s.
    The Ombudsman’s office by way of VAC and DND has confirmed that because there was no Classification of the Reserve Members such as myself they would Grandfather these members into the “C” class for the purpose of Re-Hab etc. This upgrade is to take place when the new policy and procedures come into effect.
    I encourage all Reserve Members who were not Classified to contact the Ombudsman’s Office to confirm if this policy applies to themselves.
    Murray Scott
    Edmonton Alberta

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s