In Flanders Fields

Whatever one may think of the military and those who enter it, those who complete their service whole deserve our appreciation, those who leave it hurt, broken and disabled deserve our support and the survivors of those who never came back our undying condolences for their loss. Whether or not we support the missions they undertook, it was on our behalf that they served, in two World Wars, in Korea, in UN Peacekeeping and other missions, such as in Bosnia and more recently in Afghanistan. Remembrance Day is upon us and so it is a good time to reflect on whether we, as a nation, are upholding the sacred trust that was passed to us from failing hands in Flander Fields, these many years ago.

You see, I can speak of these things with feeIing, and some knowledge, having spent the first sixteen years of my career in the public service of Canada with the Department of Veterans Affairs, an entirely fitting vocation for a young pacifist. In the early seventies, I was a Correspondence Clerk, or a letter writer, for the Canadian Pension Commission, the agency that administered the Pension Act, under which disability pensions were awarded to veterans. At that time, the report of the Wood Committee formed the basis of a government White Paper in 1969 under Trudeau, which led to a major revision of the Pension Act in 1971. Two changes were of particular importance: one that established that in inconclusive cases, the claimant should get the benefit of the doubt, the second that any veteran whose application for pension had been denied at any time prior could resubmit an application under the revised Act. The Royal Canadian Legion took this up with gusto and put on a wide ranging information campaign. It resulted in a flood of applications, swamping the Commission's ability to keep up. Processing times for new applications stretched to three years, prompting many anxious enquiries. This to say that I have read and replied to literally thousands of letters from veterans or their widows and know firsthand what the ongoing link between the veteran and the Department really means. It is, in and of itself, a form of on-going recognition: you will never be forgotten, we will always be there for you.

This is why I was pained and shocked to learn that under the new Veterans Charter, passed in 2006, the disability pension, which was a monthly benefit, indexed annually and continuously adjusted for evolving levels of disability, with additional amounts paid for spouses and dependent children, was changed to a one-time lump sum disability award. Here is your money, Charley. Goodbye.

Not only that, but the lump sum is a paltry amount compared to the pension that would have been payable over the lifetime of the veteran. For example, in the case of 100% disabled veteran, say a quadriplegic, the one time disability award would be $276,000, whereas a disability pension would have amounted to $2,895,000 over the lifetime of the veteran and his spouse (assuming they were both 28 at the time of discharge, with a life expectancy of 72 and 78 years, respectively.)

This is because the disability award is meant to recognize and compensate only for the non-economic impacts of a service-related disability, such as pain and suffering, whereas the disability pension provided compensation for both the severity of the disability and its impact on earning capacity. Under the new Charter, other benefits are available to deal with economic impact such as the Earning Loss benefit, the Permanent Impairment Allowance, Rehabilitation costs, but these are subject to other application processes and are conditional on participation in the Rehabilitation program and going through other hoops under the Financial Benefits program. Even if all available programs are accessed, the total benefit available is still nearly $300,000 less than the disability pension, and no survivor benefits. (It's even worse for a moderately disabled veteran, say 40% disability: pension = $646, 000; disability award, all available benefits accessed = $214,000, barely one third of the pension amount).

Why make it harder for veterans to get the full compensation they deserve? According to Veterans Affairs "clients receiving large monthly disability pensions did not have any incentive to transition to civilian life."

Well, as I have related above, I have read and replied to thousands of letters from veterans and their widows and transitioning to civilian life was not an issue. Veterans with service related disabilities were for the most part proud, self reliant types who worked to the full extent of their limited capacities, and beyond. A blind medical examiner, a double amputee Minister, a one-armed statistical clerk: they all drew a pension, a fitting thank you from Canada, and kept on serving. If we want to help veterans reintegrate civilian life, it should not be done on the back of their pension entitlement. I am afraid this is more "homo economicus" thinking, using money to incentivize everything. Anyone who has served knows that there are other, more powerful motivations in life.

Our newer, younger veterans are definitely getting a raw deal under the new Veterans Charter. Yesterday, a new Veterans Ombudsman was appointed. Hopefully, he will continue to take up the cause as vigorously as his predecessor. Today, November 6, veterans are taking to the streets in protest. This is a very, very rare occurrence and if it has come to that, you know that something is wrong. All of us should be protesting and telling our political leaders it doesn't matter under whose watch these changes to the Veterans Charter were introduced. Just fix it.