This Proposed Legislative Program was adopted at the 2018 NCVA Annual Meeting, held in Toronto on November 23rd.
This year's NCVA Legislative Program will once again focus on the developments that have taken place in veterans' legislation and policy since our Annual Meeting of November 2017. The report will describe the degree of progress that has been achieved and the outstanding issues and concerns that need to be addressed on a priority basis as we move forward.
We will evaluate the impact of Budget 2018, delivered by the Federal Government earlier this year, with particular attention on Bill C‑74 Part 4, which directly emanated from Minister Seamus O'Regan's much‑awaited announcement of December 20, 2017 with respect to his Pension for Life proposal. It is to be noted that this legislation was formally passed in Parliament in June and complementary regulations were implemented in September, to be effective April 1, 2019.
Our position, as adopted at our 2017 NCVA Annual Meeting, remains consistent as to the fact that the legislation has failed to live up to the Liberal Government's 2015 election commitment to address the inequities and injustices in the New Veterans Charter (now known as the Veterans Well‑being Act) and continues to ignore the "elephant in the room" which has overshadowed this entire discussion.
As stated in our many submissions to the Department, the Minister and Parliament, the Government has not satisfied veterans' expectations with regard to this fundamental mandated commitment to "re‑establish lifelong pensions" under the Charter so as to ensure that a comparable level of financial security is provided to all disabled veterans and their families over their life course.
It will be our intention to continue to pursue changes to the legislation to make it more inclusive prior to its formal implementation on April 1, 2019 pursuant to the specific recommendations and proposals contained in this year's legislative platform.
Although the ongoing battle for more comprehensive and equitable Pension for Life is essential to accomplishing a "one veteran – one standard" solution, it is important to recognize the extent of NVC reform that has been achieved over the last few years. I believe it is fair to say that NCVA has been at the forefront of this crusade, working with Ministerial Advisory Groups, the VAC and DND Ombudsmen and other veteran stakeholders to attain the following major objectives of our legislative agenda:
In conclusion, it remains my considered opinion that, given the reality of a federal election in the fall of 2019, a real opportunity still exists for meaningful improvement to the legislation so as to make it more inclusive and address the "elephant in the room." As I have often stated, the alienation of the veterans' community in an election year does not make for good politics! This is particularly so given the perceived large swing vote of the veteran community to the Liberal party in 2015, largely based on the Prime Minister's campaign promises to address the veterans' agenda and the Equitas lawsuit.
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently dismissed the Equitas class action lawsuit, thereby closing the door on the legal claim initiated against the Federal Government on behalf of Canada's disabled veterans' community.
The determined and courageous class action representatives were essentially seeking a court order compelling the Government/Veterans Affairs Canada to address the financial disparity between disability benefits awarded pursuant to the traditional Pension Act and those benefits granted under the New Veterans Charter (now known as the Veterans Well‑being Act).
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, the battle continues, as the dispute has moved from the legal jurisdiction to the political arena in order to achieve a resolution to this longstanding concern.
It is important to remember that, during the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister, in the context of the Equitas class action lawsuit, made a formal commitment to Canada's veterans that, should his party be successful, it would not be necessary for the disabled veterans to continue such a lawsuit as his Government would re‑establish lifelong pensions as an option to the lump sum disability award. It was clearly understood that this commitment would specifically address the basic discrimination that existed between the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act disability benefits, which disparity has been from the outset at the fundamental core of the class action claim.
As a general overview, the National Council of Veteran Associations (NCVA) continues to contend that the legislation emanating from Bill C-74 Part 4 (which is essentially the legislative implementation of Minister Seamus O'Regan's announcement of December 20, 2017 regarding the long‑awaited promise of a "lifelong pension" option) has failed to live up to the Liberal Government's 2015 election commitment to address the inequities in the New Veterans Charter. Additionally, it continues to ignore the "elephant in the room" which has overshadowed this entire discussion. The Government has not satisfied veterans' expectations with regard to this formal commitment to "re‑establish lifelong pensions" under the Charter so as to ensure that a comparable level of financial security is provided to all disabled veterans and their families over their life course.
With specific reference to the provisions of the new legislation effective April 1, 2019, the statutory and regulatory amendments ostensibly reflect the Government's attempt to create a form of "pension for life" which includes the following three elements:
Although, as per usual, "the devil remains in the details" as to the relevance of these new legislative provisions and amended regulations flowing from Bill C‑74 Part 4 to individual disabled veterans, it is readily apparent that only a circumscribed number of seriously disabled veterans and their survivors may benefit from the new legislation when compared to the level of entitlement available under the present New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act. However, the greater majority of disabled veterans will not be materially impacted by the legislation in that the new benefits under these legislative and regulatory amendments will have limited applicability. In addition, it is self‑evident that the financial disparity between the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act will be perpetuated for this significant cohort of disabled veterans in Canada.
Much more is required to improve the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act so as to address the proverbial "elephant in the room" in that the legislation stemming from Bill C‑74 Part 4 fails to satisfy the priority concerns of the veterans' community in relation to:
It is totally unacceptable that we continue to have veterans' legislation in Canada which provides a significantly higher level of compensation to a veteran who is injured prior to 2006 (date of enactment of the New Veterans Charter) when compared to a veteran who is injured post‑2006. If applied to the Afghanistan conflict this discrimination results in veterans of the same war having totally different pension benefits.
During the course of discussions following Budget 2017 leading up to the Minister's announcement, there was considerable concern in the veterans' community, which proved to be well founded, that the Government would simply establish an option wherein the lump sum payment (disability award) would be apportioned or reworked over the life of the veteran for the purposes of creating a lifelong pension. NCVA and other veteran stakeholders, together with the Ministerial Policy Advisory Group, strongly criticized this proposition as being totally inadequate and not providing the lifetime financial security which was envisaged by the veterans' community.
It is fair to say that the reasonable expectation of veteran stakeholders was that some form of substantive benefit stream needed to be established which would address the financial disparity between the benefits received under the Pension Act and the NVC for all individually disabled veterans.
It has been NCVA's consistent recommendation to the Minister and to the Department that VAC should adopt the major conclusions of the Ministerial Advisory Group Report formally presented to the Veterans Summit in Ottawa in October 2016 together with the recommendations contained in the 2017 NCVA Legislative Program – both of these reports proposed that the combination of the best provisions of the Pension Act and the best provisions of the New Veterans Charter would produce a form of lifetime pension in a much more realistic manner in order to secure the financial security for those veterans who need this form of monetary support through their lifetime.
If the "one veteran – one standard" philosophy advocated by VAC has any meaning, this glaring disparity between the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act benefits for the greater majority of disabled veterans requires that the Government seize the moment and satisfy the financial needs of Canadian veterans and their dependants. The new legislation flowing from Bill C‑74 Part 4 has missed an opportunity to recognize that the longstanding social covenant between the Canadian people and the veterans' community demands nothing less.
We would refer to recent NCVA op‑ed papers published over recent months in response to the Minister's announcement and subsequent public statements. This analysis, together with Appendices A and B to this paper, address in considerable detail the fundamental deficiencies and flaws contained in the VAC position and outlines a series of proposals as to what can be done to improve the Pension for Life concept emanating from Bill C‑74 Part 4.
We strongly encourage the Government to seriously consider the implementation of the following major recommendation of the Ministerial Policy Advisory Group as a first step to addressing this problem of the "elephant in the room":
[T]he enhancement of the Earnings Loss Benefit/Career Impact Allowance as a single stream of income for life, the addition of Exceptional Incapacity Allowance, Attendance Allowance and a new monthly family benefit for life in accordance with the Pension Act will ensure all veterans receive the care and support they deserve when they need it and through their lifetime.
In specific terms we would also suggest that the following steps would dramatically enhance the legislative provisions and amended regulations relevant to the Pension for Life proposition found in Bill C‑74 Part 4 and go a long way to satisfying the "one veteran – one standard" approach presently followed by VAC as a basic principle of administration:
Liberalize the eligibility criteria in the legislation and regulatory amendments for the new Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit so that more disabled veterans actually qualify for this benefit – currently, only veterans suffering from a severe and permanent impairment will be eligible. It bears repeating that the greater majority of disabled veterans simply will not qualify for this new component of the proposed lifelong pension.
It is noteworthy that the new regulations with respect to the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit ostensibly replicate the eligibility prerequisites of the Permanent Impairment Allowance/Career Impact Allowance. These PIA/CIA provisions have produced restrictive and arbitrary results over the years since their inception and were further complicated with the formula established by VAC in 2017 in relation to the interpretation of the CIA grades through the employment of the "Diminished Earnings Capacity" test.
A more generous and readily understood approach is required in the amended regulations for the APSC benefit so as to generate a more inclusive class of disabled veterans. It has been the longstanding position of NCVA that the traditional PIA/CIA regulations and policy guideline requirements reflected a "blunt instrument" as opposed to a "precise tool" in evaluating the overall impact that an injury may have on a disabled veteran.
In NCVA's 2017 Legislative Program, we have argued that the veterans Disability Award (Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit) initially granted should be a major determinant in evaluating CIA (APSC) qualifications. The above‑mentioned "Diminished Earnings Capacity" test employed by VAC and the apparent new criteria set out in the regulatory amendments for APSC qualification represent, in our judgment, a more restrictive approach to the Disability Award evaluation.
In effect, it is the position of NCVA that this employment of the Disability Award (PSC) percentage would produce a more straightforward and easier‑understood solution to this ongoing issue of CIA (APSC) eligibility. The following would reflect this form of evaluation criteria for CIA (APSC):
|Veteran Disability Award (PSC)||CIA (APSC) Grade|
|78% or over||1|
|48% – 78%||2|
Alternatively, the DA (PSC) percentage could be applied in a more precise manner by using the percentile against the maximum CIA/APSC compensation available – for example, if a veteran is in receipt of a DA (PSC) of 65% the veteran would receive 65% of the maximum CIA (APSC) allowance. For the purposes of Grade 3 assessment, it is our recommendation that the DA (PSC) percentile could be similarly applied; i.e. if a veteran is in receipt of a DA (PSC) of 25%, the veteran would receive 25% of the maximum CIA (APSC) allowance. Note that this quantification of career impact has been utilized under the Pension Act for almost one hundred years in assessing the loss of earning capacity of a disabled veteran for lifetime pension purposes.
The adoption of this type of approach would have the added advantage of enhancing the Pension for Life so as to incorporate more disabled veterans and address the fundamental parity question in relation to Pension Act benefits. With reference to the regulatory amendments emanating from Bill C‑74 Part 4, we would also express concern that the regulatory prerequisite for the APSC benefit with regard to the disability of amputation remains arbitrarily defined, both as to eligibility and designated grade level.
It is to be noted that amputation at or above the knee or at or above the elbow is retained as a fundamental requirement for qualification in relation to a single‑limb amputee – our years of experience with The War Amputations of Canada make clear that the loss of a limb at any level represents a "severe and permanent impairment" for the veteran amputee – the current arbitrary distinction is not justified and should be amended.
In my over 40 years of working with The War Amps of Canada, we have literally handled hundreds of special allowance claims and were specifically involved in the formulation of the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance/Attendance Allowance guidelines and grade profiles from the outset. We would indicate that these two special allowances, EIA and AA, represent an integral portion of the compensation available to war amputees and other seriously disabled veterans governed by the Pension Act.
It is of further interest in our judgment that the grade levels for these allowances tend to increase over the life of the veterans as the "ravages of age" are confronted – indeed, non‑pensioned conditions such as the onset of a heart, cancer or diabetic condition, for example, are part and parcel of the EIA/AA adjudication uniquely carried out under the Pension Act policies in this context.
As a sidebar, it is interesting that VAC refers to the new Caregiver Recognition Benefit of $1,000.00 a month as an indication of the Government's attempt to address the needs of families of disabled veterans. What continues to mystify the veterans' community is why the Government has chosen to "reinvent the wheel" in this area when addressing this need for attendance/caregiving under the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act. For many decades, Attendance Allowance (with its five grade levels) has been an effective vehicle in this regard, providing a substantially higher level of compensation and more generous eligibility criteria to satisfy this requirement. In this context, it is noteworthy that the spouses or families of seriously disabled veterans often have to give up significant employment opportunities to fulfill the caregiving needs of the disabled veteran – $1,000.00 a month is simply not sufficient recognition of this income loss. VAC should return to the Attendance Allowance provision and pay such benefit to caregiver directly if so desired.
We would strongly suggest that VAC pursue the incorporation of the EIA/AA special allowances into the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act prior to the formal implementation of these legislative/regulatory amendments on April 1, 2019 so as to address these deficiencies in the Pension for Life.
As a general observation in relation to the new legislation and the regulatory amendments with regard to the evaluation of the calculation surrounding the new Income Replacement Benefit, we would suggest the following concerns are material:
With reference to the one percent per year increase in the IRB, it is to be noted that this percentile augmentation ostensibly decreases in financial impact with the higher number of years of military service experienced by the disabled veteran and disappears completely for those veterans who have served for over 20 years prior to suffering their injury or disability.
It is also of significance that, with the elimination of the Career Impact Allowance supplements ($12,000.00 per year allowance), new veteran applicants post‑April 1, 2019 will potentially be at a disadvantage due to the impact of this mathematical calculation, as for many veterans the one percent increase in the IRB will not make up for the loss of the CIA(S).
We would strongly suggest that the Department consider the impact of these factors relative to the new Income Replacement Benefit so as to ensure this one percent increase has substantive and meaningful impact for disabled veterans who require such income replacement for life. In addition, we would submit that VAC ultimately adopt the above‑mentioned progressive income model for a newly structured form of CIA in accord with the approach utilized by the Canadian courts as to "future loss of income."
In summary, it is fundamental to understand that it was truly the expectation of the disabled veteran community that the "re‑establishment" of a Pension for Life option would not just attempt to address the concerns of the small minority of disabled veterans but would include a recognition of all disabled veterans who require financial security in coping with their levels of incapacity.
As a final observation, the Minister consistently talks of the significance that the Government attaches to the wellness, rehabilitation and education programs under the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act. As we have stated on a number of occasions, we commend VAC for its efforts to improve these important policies. NCVA recognizes the value and importance of wellness and rehabilitation programs; however, we take the position that financial security remains a fundamental necessity to the successful implementation of any wellness or rehabilitation strategy. It is readily apparent that this is not a choice between wellness and financial compensation as advanced by the Minister and the Prime Minister, but a combined requirement to any optimal re‑establishment approach to medically released veterans.
Ideally, we would like to believe that VAC, working together with relevant Ministerial Advisory Groups and other veteran stakeholders, could think "outside the box" by jointly striving over time to create a comprehensive program model that would essentially treat all veterans with parallel disabilities in the same manner as to the application of benefits and wellness policies – thereby resulting in the elimination of artificial cut‑off dates that arbitrarily distinguish veterans based on whether they were injured before or after 2006.
In our judgment, the adoption of this innovative policy objective would have the added advantage of signaling to the veterans' community that VAC is prepared to take progressive steps to tackle legislative reform beyond the statute emanating from Bill C‑74 Part 4 so as to address this fundamental core issue of concern to Canada's veterans.
A realistic comparison on an "apples to apples" basis reveals that a significant disparity will continue to exist between compensation for seriously disabled veterans under the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter (Veterans Well‑being Act) once the Minister's proposals, announced on December 20, 2017, take effect in April 2019. It is essential in this context to recognize that the actual maximum amounts of compensation under each statutory regime will be as follows:
|NEW VETERANS CHARTER/VETERANS WELL-BEING ACT (2019)|
|Pain and Suffering Compensation (per month or lump sum)||$1,150.00|
|Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation
(limited to veterans suffering permanent and severe impairment)
|Caregiver Allowance (per month)||$1,000.00|
|Total (maximum per month)||$3,650.00|
Veteran plus two children
|Disability Pension (maximum per month)
Note: Pension Compensation for family/dependants is not available under the New Veterans Charter
|Exceptional Incapacity Allowance (maximum per month)||$1,478.00|
|Attendance Allowance (maximum per month)||$1,848.00|
|Total (maximum per month)||$7,444.00|
Veteran plus spouse
|Disability Pension (maximum per month)
Note: Pension Compensation for family/dependants is not available under the New Veterans Charter
|Exceptional Incapacity Allowance (maximum per month)||$1,478.00|
|Attendance Allowance (maximum per month)||$1,848.00|
|Total (maximum per month)||$6,817.00|
|Disability Pension (maximum per month)||$2,792.00|
|Exceptional Incapacity Allowance (maximum per month)||$1,478.00|
|Attendance Allowance (maximum per month)||$1,848.00|
|Total (maximum per month)||$6,118.00|
In this context, it is noteworthy that the Minister and senior governmental officials of VAC, over recent months in their public pronouncements, have emphasized that additional benefits and services are uniquely available under the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act with respect to income replacement, rehabilitation, and wellness programs.
We commend Veterans Affairs Canada for its efforts to improve the Department's wellness and educational policies. However, it should be noted that a number of programs dealing with essentially parallel income replacement and rehabilitation policies already exist under the Pension Act regime by means of services and benefits administered by the Department of National Defence through their SISIP Long Term Disability insurance policy and Vocational Rehabilitation (VOC‑REHAB) Programs.
Although, at the time of the enactment of the New Veterans Charter in 2006, Veterans Affairs Canada committed to eliminating SISIP LTD and VOC‑REHAB programs and creating a new gold standard in regard to these wellness programs, the reality is that the SISIP LTD and VOC‑REHAB insurance policy has been and continues today to be "the first responder" for the greater majority of disabled veterans who have been medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces in relation to both the Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter.
As a fundamental tenet of our position we would like to think that the Minister could be convinced that, rather than choosing one statutory regime over the other, the best parts of the Pension Act and the best parts of the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act would provide a better compensation/wellness model for all disabled veterans in Canada.
It is of even greater significance to recognize the effect of the Pension for Life policy, in accordance with the Veterans Well‑being Act in effect on April 1, 2019, on those disabled veterans who might be considered moderately disabled as the disparity in financial compensation is even more dramatic.
Let us take the illustration of a veteran with a 35% disability assessment:
It is important to be cognizant of the fact that, once such a veteran earns 66‑2/3% of his or her pre‑release military income, the veteran is no longer eligible for the Income Replacement Benefit and, due to the fact that the veteran's disability does not equate to a "severe and permanent impairment," the veteran does not qualify for the new Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation Benefit.
Thus, in accord with the Minister's announcement of December 20, 2017, the veteran will receive the following Pain and Suffering compensation benefit:
On the other hand, the Pension Act veteran at 35% will receive as a Disability Pension:
We would underline that this analysis demonstrates the extremely significant financial disparity which results for this type of moderately disabled veteran. It is essential to recognize that it is expected, as of April 1, 2019, that over 80% of disabled veterans under the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act will fall into this category of compensation. Unfortunately, the perpetuation of these two distinct classes of veteran pensioner is self‑evident and remains unacceptable to the overall veterans' community.
Notwithstanding the fact that VAC has converted the former Career Impact Allowance provision into the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit, it remains the position of NCVA, in concert with the Policy Advisory Group, that the Department revisit the concept of CIA and address the future loss of income suffered by a disabled veteran on the basis of the following fundamental question – "What would the disabled veteran have earned in his or her projected military career if the veteran had not been injured?"
It will be recalled that it is the position of the Policy Advisory Group, as endorsed by the longstanding view of NCVA, that, once this benchmark for CIA is established, a newly structured benefit be developed as delineated in various reports emanating from the Veterans Ombudsman's office over recent years and as proposed by the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group in 2009. The evaluation of the Veterans Ombudsman demonstrates the relative predictability of the elevation of a CAF member through his or her military career in recognizing the specific ranks the member would have achieved had the member not been injured. (For an extensive discussion on this subject refer to pages 7 through 9 of the NCVA Legislative Report of 2016.)
It is also of considerable import that the Canadian Civil Courts over the last number of decades have evaluated the plight of severely injured plaintiffs by consistently applying the concept of future loss of income in assessing monetary damages. In a similar fashion to the proposals emanating from our Policy Advisory Group on Career Impact Allowance, the courts consider the probable career earnings of an injured plaintiff from the perspective of future loss of income or, alternatively, future loss of earnings capacity as part and parcel of the damage award granted to plaintiffs in the Canadian judicial system.
It is of interest that, in the context of Veterans Affairs Canada, the Department has a distinct advantage over the courts, as the judicial system only has "one bite at the apple" at the time of the court hearing or settlement. VAC, on the other hand, is able to monitor the income position of a disabled veteran throughout his/her life to determine the differential between the benchmark established by the CIA concept and the actual income received by the veteran. Query: why should an injured Canadian veteran receive less than an injured plaintiff with reference to "future loss of income"? We have, in effect, paralleled the Disability Award under the New Veterans Charter with general damage awards in the Canadian courts – why not replicate the philosophy of the future loss of income concept as well?
It is the opinion of the Minister and the Deputy Minister that this program represents a landmark proposal which substantially enhances the Education and Training Benefit for all eligible veterans. Deputy Minister Walt Natynczyk suggested last year at the time of the formal announcement that it was based on the United States G.I. Bill in relation to extending educational benefits beyond disabled veterans so as to include all released veterans who qualify under this new program.
The benefit will be available for ten years going forward following the release of the veteran and will be retroactive to April 1, 2006.
This program was initiated on April 1, 2018 for all veterans honourably released on or after April 1, 2006 – veterans with six years of eligible service will be entitled to up to $40,000.00 of benefits, while veterans with twelve years of eligible service will be entitled to up to $80,000.00 of benefits. The Minister/Deputy Minister emphasized that the benefit would provide more money for veterans to go to college, university or technical school after they complete their service.
There is little question that this newly expanded educational benefit will be potentially beneficial to a much larger segment of the veterans' community. My one caveat is that the "devil is often in the details" and questions of eligibility criteria will have to be examined closely and, in addition, it will be necessary to determine whether the rather restrictive policy in the past regarding educational programs for disabled veterans will be addressed and that more liberal access in general will be achieved by this initiative.
It will also be important to understand whether a released veteran wishing to take advantage of the educational benefit will be covered through some form of income replacement program to address the potential diminishment in income received for the maximum four‑year period, i.e. will the SISIP LTD program or the VAC IRB program accompany this educational benefit particularly for disabled veterans who might qualify though this REHAB/Education Program?
Deputy Minister Natynczyk has also indicated that, for those veterans who find education is not their solution, there would be further monies available under this program for career development courses in the neighbourhood of $5,000.00 per veteran.
With reference to the ongoing topic of the transition process for disabled veterans from the Department of National Defence to Veterans Affairs Canada, it remains readily apparent that dramatic procedural changes are required to ease this transition. Although Deputy Minister Natynczyk has initiated significant policy revisions to provide for an early intervention well in advance of the ultimate medical release of the disabled veteran, there remains much more work to be done to ensure that this transitional process is improved. It is extremely noteworthy that both the Veterans Affairs Ombudsman Guy Parent and the DND Ombudsman Gary Walbourne in the past two years have made significant proposals to the Minister and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in relation to improving the transitional protocols in this context.
Quite clearly, one of the most significant priorities with reference to this transitional phase is to ensure that disabled veterans are fully apprised of benefits and entitlements, rehabilitation options and job alternatives well before their medical discharge from the Canadian Armed Forces.
In this regard, it remains the strong opinion of NCVA that VAC should be able to identify those benefits a veteran is entitled to and implement these benefits on the veteran's behalf. In general terms, the utilization of a knowledgeable case manager together with administrative aides at an early point in the transitional process should expedite this procedure, as opposed to the current protocol where a veteran is often asked to describe his or her needs and the precise benefits that the veteran is seeking. It has been our recommendation that the case manager must be in a position in nearly all cases to identify these benefits and entitlements to the individual veteran under the various VAC programs, and that this should occur in collaborative partnership with the Department of National Defence prior to the discharge of the disabled veteran in question. With particular reference to seriously disabled veterans, the onus should be removed from the veteran and the VAC administrative function should be fine‑tuned and more proactive in establishing entitlements for such veterans.
In the context of transition, it is to be noted that the Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent issued a scathing report in September 2018 criticizing the Federal Government for causing added frustration and stress to many injured veterans as they are forced to wait months longer than promised to find out if they qualify for disability benefits and other treatment supports.
Canadian veterans are told they can expect to find out within 16 weeks whether they are eligible for financial assistance and medical treatment for injuries related to their service. The Veterans Ombudsman's review found that the target was achieved when it came to applications by veterans from the Second World War and Korea, but roughly 70 percent of applications from other veterans – including those who served in Afghanistan – experienced delays.
The average turnaround time for those applications was 23 weeks to 29 weeks, depending on which files were counted, while more than a quarter of those took 32 weeks or longer, a situation that is getting worse thanks to a growing backlog of files.
The findings were particularly troublesome for Francophone and female veterans, some of whom have been waiting for more than a year for a decision and whose files were disproportionately represented in those suffering from the longest delays.
It is to be noted that disability benefits decisions made under the Pension Act provide better access to treatment benefits. For example, health care expenses incurred while waiting for a decision are reimbursable going back 90 days prior to the date of the application – while those who fall under the Veterans Well‑being Act only receive coverage from the date of decision. The backlog worsens this inequity – delays mean some veterans must pay their own treatment costs while they wait or forgo it all together.
The Ombudsman's office also underlines that, because of discrepancies with how the "service standard start date" – or the date the "clock starts ticking"– is determined, veterans with less need may see their applications move forward in the queue before others. The extensive Veterans Ombudsman's report makes seven major recommendations which will ensure that:
NCVA supports the findings of the Veterans Ombudsman and praises his comprehensive and thorough analysis of a longstanding concern to the veterans' community – turnaround times have been a substantial problem within Veterans Affairs Canada going back many years.
It is also noteworthy that, due to the complexity and confusion surrounding a number of new benefits which have been promulgated over the last couple of years, the process has been backlogged, resulting in many veterans being unable to access these new benefits and, as significantly, understand the criteria for application. In effect, the Government has created a bit of a "monster" insofar as the nature and scope of the benefit grid which currently exists within Veterans Affairs Canada.
In early 2018, VAC created a new policy with reference to consequential disabilities flowing from veterans' legislation, i.e. disabilities arising out of, in whole or in part, a pensioned disability granted to an individual veteran.
The VAC policy amendment established a principle that any consequential award would either be granted at a four‑fifths or five‑fifths entitlement. In the past, fractional entitlements for consequential awards were granted in fifths – one‑fifth, two‑fifths, three‑fifths et al. The backgrounder information given to our Advisory Group from VAC indicated that these fractional entitlements were often appealed one‑fifth at a time, clogging up the entire VAC adjudicative system. It was felt that it would be prudent to simply eliminate the one‑fifth, two‑fifths and three‑fifths entitlements and grant a four‑fifths for any partial consequential award.
This is clearly a beneficial policy insofar as a substantive increase in pension to be received by a veteran, but does raise a number of questions:
NCVA continues to have a fundamental concern as to whether SISIP LTD for service‑related disabilities should be continued at all or whether it should be eliminated due to the multiple standards which exist not only with the SISIP LTD program but also the SISIP VOC‑REHAB program.
One of the priority recommendations of NCVA, the Ministerial Policy Advisory Group, the New Veterans Charter Advisory Group, numerous veteran consultation groups, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Ombudsman's office for many years has been to suggest that the insurance culture needs to be removed from the compensation made available to veterans and their families. The compensation of veterans and their dependants should not be a function of the insurance industry whose mandate, in many situations, is to minimize exposure of the insurer's policy when applied to injured or disabled individuals.
As a matter of background, a fundamental commitment made by the Government at the time of the enactment of the New Veterans Charter was the recognition that the SISIP LTD program should be eliminated and fully replaced by a liberalized income replacement loss benefit administered by VAC. The constraints placed on the New Veterans Charter by the restrictive provisions of the SISIP LTD program and the SISIP VOC‑REHAB program are felt in the present context and should be removed as soon as possible. This Government commitment made by the Minister and Deputy Minister of the day was part and parcel of the understanding between the veteran stakeholder community and VAC in consideration of the immediate passage of the Charter by Parliament in 2006.
It is to be noted that the "wellness program" strongly advocated by VAC and, more particularly, Deputy Minister Walt Natynczyk, is clearly impacted by the fact that the greater majority of medically released CAF members fall under the administration of the SISIP VOC‑REHAB program. In effect, Veterans Affairs does not have the capacity to control and operate this portion of the VOC‑REHAB program and is left with little accountability as to the impact that the SISIP program will have on veterans in regard to this essential element of the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act.
With reference to the question of service and non‑service related disabilities, it has been the experience of the veterans' community that this entire question of whether a member of the Canadian Armed Forces is to be considered "on duty" for the purposes of pensionability either under the Pension Act or the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act has been a longstanding grievance. The regulations in this area would be far clearer and more equitable if the Government/Department agreed to adopt the "insurance principle" in this context so that all members of the military would be considered "on duty" at all times and thus eligible for various financial benefits such as the Disability Award and Income Replacement programs once they put on a uniform. This would clear up the potential interpretive issues which are raised in the regulations to the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act, and would address the confusion and ambiguity which often results when individual hypothetical cases reflect "gray areas" or areas of dispute. The resultant effect of this recognition would also further the objective of eliminating the SISIP LTD program even for non‑service related disabilities which, of course, was its original and exclusive mandate in the 1970s when it was first created.
NCVA remains concerned that the Government has not sufficiently addressed the plight of families, particularly in circumstances where a member of a family, often a spouse, is required to act in the role of a caregiver to a disabled veteran.
As a matter of background, the Family Caregiver Relief Benefit (FCRB) introduced in 2015 proved to be clearly inadequate and certainly required further re‑evaluation, as it failed to comprehensively provide adequate financial support for the families of seriously disabled veterans where significant needs of attendance must be provided by a caregiver who often has had to leave his or her employment to do so.
It is noteworthy that the Caregiver Recognition Benefit has replaced the existing Family Caregiver Relief Benefit as of April 1, 2018 and provides a slightly more generous non‑taxable $1,000.00 a month benefit payable directly to caregivers to ostensibly recognize and honour their vital role. NCVA has raised obvious questions as to why the quantum of the Attendance Allowance or Attendant Care Benefit was not utilized as opposed to the rather meagre $12,000.00 a year. It is readily apparent that VAC need not "reinvent the wheel" with regard to such caregiver allowances as:
In addition, I have particularly emphasized with Ministerial officials the concern that there should be more flexibility attached to this new Caregiver Recognition Benefit as, clearly, "one size does not fit all." It is not without significance in this area that the grading levels available under the Attendance Allowance provisions of the Pension Act give the Department a certain degree of discretion and flexibility as to the attendance needs of individual veterans. In my experience, there are numerous examples where substantial distinctions exist as to the need for attendance encountered by seriously disabled veterans.
It is also of significance that the Ministerial Policy Advisory Group is proposing a new Family Benefit for all veterans in receipt of a Disability Award based on the level of disability assessment which would provide further support to families and address, to a certain extent, the cost of the veteran's disability to his spouse and/or dependant children. The amount of this benefit would parallel the payments which have been made under the Pension Act for many years as part of the pension received by a disabled veteran who has a spouse and/or dependant children. Once again, the resultant impact of balancing benefits in this manner under both statutory regimes would be particularly responsive to the current shortcoming in the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act insofar as financial assistance to families of disabled veterans is concerned.
It is also to be noted that the new legislative amendments emanating from Budget 2018 (which consolidate a number of income replacement provisions into one benefit, the Income Replacement Benefit (IRB)) unfortunately still retain the inadequacies of the Retirement Income Security Benefit (RISB) which was enacted two years ago by the former Conservative Government in its attempt to address the post‑65 financial security for seriously disabled veterans and their families. The new post‑65 benefit provides specific veterans with 70 percent of the Income Replacement Benefit, should the veteran be deemed as suffering a "diminished earnings capacity" as defined under the regulatory provisions of the new Act, less certain potentially significant deductions prescribed by these policy provisions.
In our view, to apply a 70 percent formula to the post‑65 period for a permanently incapacitated veteran based on a public/private sector pension model is not appropriate when it is recognized that the plight of such a seriously disabled veteran post‑65 remains unchanged and his or her financial costs continue to be essentially the same.
During the course of initial discussions surrounding the enactment of these post‑65 provisions, strong arguments were made by NCVA and various veteran stakeholder groups that the full Earnings Loss Benefit/Income Replacement Benefit should be continued for life, particularly given the fact that the principal recipients of this post‑65 "pension" will be totally incapacitated veterans.
It is interesting to note that our Policy Advisory Group recommendations address this specific issue by establishing that a single stream of ELB/CIA payments should be continued for life, as is the case for similar Pension Act benefits, and that the RISB or post‑65 benefit be eliminated – as it is self‑evident that these provisions are far too complex and impact negatively on many seriously disabled veterans and, particularly, surviving spouses.
In addition, the Policy Advisory Group financial compensation model provided that, in the event ELB/CIA is indeed continued for life without deduction, surviving spouses should be entitled to 70 percent of this amount which would equate to the proposed levels of the new Canadian Forces Superannuation Act survivor benefit committed to under the Minister's mandate letter. Although the resultant net effect will not provide as much financial support as the MPAG is recommending, we would confirm that the Department has at least implemented a parallel provision in this context providing a survivor benefit of 70 percent for the new consolidated IRB post‑65 benefit under the legislation flowing from Bill C‑74 Part 4.
NCVA takes the position that VAC, working together with relevant Ministerial Advisory Groups and other veteran stakeholders, could think "outside the box" by jointly striving over time to create a comprehensive program model that would essentially treat all veterans with parallel disabilities in the same manner as to the application of benefits and wellness policies – thereby resulting in the elimination of artificial cut‑off dates that arbitrarily distinguish veterans based on whether they were injured before or after 2006.
NCVA adopts the position that much more is required to improve the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act and that the Government needs to fully implement the Ministerial Policy Advisory Group recommendations presented to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Summit in October 2016 with particular emphasis on:
In addition to the above‑mentioned fundamental proposals as to the overriding guiding principles for legislative reform, the following recommendations represent specific statutory and policy amendments in furtherance of this objective:
NCVA continues to support the contention that the seriously disabled veteran should be given the highest priority in the implementation of the Government's plan of action for legislative reform in regard to the New Veterans Charter/Veterans Well‑being Act and other related legislative provisions.
NCVA endorses the position that the Federal Government's failure to fully implement a plan of action on reforming the New Veterans Charter violated the social covenant owed to Canadian veterans and their families.
That NCVA require that DND and VAC employ all necessary financial, professional and personnel resources to identify, care and compensate veterans' suffering from post‑traumatic stress disorder and that it is recognized that this insidious disability must be continually monitored to ensure the well being of such veterans.
N.B.: DND/VAC released a comprehensive report last fall entitled "Joint Suicide Prevention Strategy" which established a comprehensive set of protocols to address this entire question of PTSD and suicide. The veterans' community will be monitoring this new policy very closely to determine how effective these proposals will be in addressing what many in the veterans' community have described as a significant crisis.
NCVA supports the Veterans Ombudsman's report, issued in September 2018, with reference to the inordinate delays and turnaround times with regard to applications for veterans' disability benefits and treatment entitlement, in order to address this longstanding concern.
That NCVA continue to apply "relentless scrutiny" to departmental service delivery, so that we are able to draw our own conclusions as to the impact of the budgetary staffing enhancements currently being implemented by VAC and promised in the future by the Liberal Government in order to make our own judgment as to the question of whether VAC has become more administratively efficient through the "red tape cutting" initiative.
That NCVA member‑organizations contribute proposals based on their own members' experiences to be included in the effective work of The War Amps Task Force for the purposes of a further submission to VAC in addressing bureaucratic obstacles and eliminating red tape.
That NCVA continue to promote the utilization of presumptions in the VAC adjudicative system as outlined in NCVA's 2014 Legislative Agenda, so as to create administrative efficiencies and provide financial savings to the Department in this period of budgetary analysis.
As discussed over the course of the last number of NCVA meetings, it is self‑evident that VAC, through VIP, has the authority to cover specific costs and expenditures while a qualified veteran resides in his home. In addition, once such a veteran pensioner has reached the stage where a long‑term care facility is required, the Veteran Health Care Regulations establish financial support at this time in the health care process.
As we have consistently argued with departmental officials for many years, what has been missing has been the financial assistance for the middle ground or intermediary level of institutionalization where many of our members currently find themselves, i.e. seniors' residences and assisted living facilities.
We have had a number of intensive meetings with departmental officials over the last year in an attempt to close this gap, and I remain encouraged, through the recent discussions we have just completed with senior members of the VAC team, that attempts are continuing to be made to address this longstanding concern.
Previously, I advised this meeting that I continue to work closely with the Veterans Ombudsman's Office in this context. It is of significant interest that Guy Parent's office has adopted our position and has issued a number of reports with regard to Long Term Care/Intermediary Care which fully recognize the shortcomings that currently exist in the VAC Health Care Regulations concerning this particular gap in financial coverage. This will add further ammunition and support to our ongoing initiative to ensure that these inequities are eliminated.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Veterans Ombudsman released an excellent report last year entitled "CONTINUUM OF CARE: A JOURNEY FROM HOME TO LONG TERM CARE" which contains a comprehensive analysis of the current VAC long term care and health care policies. The report further provides a series of recommendations which are consistent and in line with NCVA's longstanding position on this important subject. We will continue to collaborate with Guy Parent, and his successor, in pursing the implementation of these mutually desired recommendations.
In summary, the Veterans Ombudsman's proposals are as follows:
Recommendation 7: Develop and publicly communicate a strategy to ensure that the continuum of care needs of all Veterans are being met within the current context of the Canadian Health Care system.
As many of you will be aware, there have been a number of high‑profile cases in the last two years which have been described in national media articles with reference to specific veterans attempting to gain admission to long term care facilities in various provinces across the country. It is of interest that VAC has ostensibly developed a flexible position in this context, so as to provide access to Traditional veterans' facilities on the basis of designating certain priority access beds as community beds (preferred veterans beds) for the purposes of VAC Policy Guidelines. This development of a form of freedom of choice for veterans attempting to gain admission to long‑term care facilities should be encouraged on an ongoing basis.
That NCVA continue to collaborate with VAC to ensure that the adult residential care needs of the veteran are addressed through the expansion of the current VIP program and long‑term care policy of the Department so as to provide financial assistance in this area of institutionalized care.
That NCVA continue to work with the Veterans Ombudsman's office in drawing to the attention of the Liberal Government the inequity that has resulted in the gap that currently exists in the VAC health care regulations concerning financial coverage for adult residential care.
That NCVA ensure that VAC continues to develop flexible policy to provide veterans with a freedom of choice between a community bed and a priority access bed for purposes of admission to long‑term care facilities.
That NCVA will continue to express the concerns of our member‑organizations to the Minister and the Deputy Minister with reference to the administration of Ste. Anne's Hospital. NCVA intends to hold ongoing discussions with the Minister's office to protect the interests of veterans affected by this transfer and ensure that the provisions found in the transfer agreement established to support the commitments made in relation to priority beds for veterans, language rights, and the standard of care be strictly enforced and funded by the Federal Government as promised.
N.B.: It is to be noted that following the preparation of this report we have become aware of a class action lawsuit initiated by a 95-year-old resident at Ste. Anne's by the name of Wolf Solkin. Mr. Solkin perceives that there have been significant violations in the Transfer Agreement between the Federal Government and the Province of Quebec as to the quality and standard of care at the hospital.
It remains a priority issue of NCVA to underline the need to expand the eligibility of VIP to include, at a minimum, those surviving spouses of seriously disabled veterans whose veteran spouses did not apply for VIP prior to their death. Our position continues to be that in many cases the veteran was unable or reluctant to apply for VIP in the years prior to his or her passing. It is our strong argument that a presumption could be established that, in the event the seriously disabled veteran had applied or was able to apply for VIP, he or she would have received the benefit given his or her significant incapacity. It is submitted that the Department would have great difficulty in refuting the logic of our argument and we remain hopeful that this particular presumption will be of great value to our surviving spouses in achieving VIP benefits.
As a matter of historic development, you will recall that the Federal Budget of 2008 partially expanded the current regulations for the continuation of VIP for life for surviving spouses provided the surviving spouse is either in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement or has entitlement to the Disability Tax Credit under the Income Tax Act. It remains our position that this partial expansion is far too restrictive and that the required criteria should be removed with respect to surviving spouses of seriously disabled veterans.
That NCVA continue to pressure the Minister and departmental officials to review the present policy on the continuation of VIP for Life for surviving spouses with a view to providing, at a minimum, this benefit to all surviving spouses of seriously disabled veterans who are not eligible because the veteran never applied for the benefits.
That the Minister of Veterans Affairs alter the Government's current position so that:
Budget 2016 provided an expansion of the eligibility for The Last Post Fund Program so that more families of low‑income veterans will receive financial assistance under this program. The Budget proposed to increase the estate exemption for The Last Post Fund from roughly $12,000.00 to roughly $35,000.00 and applied an annual cost of living adjustment to this estate exemption going forward.
Although these are improvements over previous Government policies in this area, it remains our position that it is necessary for VAC to recognize that a seriously disabled veteran should be entitled, as a Matter of Right, to receive funeral and burial benefits pursuant to the Veterans Burial Regulations.
As we have often stated, it is puzzling indeed that, during the lives of seriously disabled veterans, the Department has recognized the cumulative and synergistic impact of both their pension and non‑pension conditions, approving many health care and treatment benefits on their behalf but, in death, ignores the relationship between these conditions.
In this context, it is inconceivable in our submission that the impact of the seriously disabled veteran's pension and non‑pension disabilities did not play a part in his/her ultimate demise. In this overall analysis, the principle of presumption should be fully applicable to this area of VAC adjudication.
I would advise, however, that with the odd exception, recent developments in this area insofar as the treatment of seriously disabled veterans continue to be extremely encouraging.
You will recall that last year, through our Legislative Program, we were deeply disturbed to learn of the rejection of a Hong Kong veteran's claim for Last Post funding. As many of you will be aware, The War Amps of Canada has acted for the Hong Kong Veterans Association and all of its members for many decades – rarely have we been required to appeal a claim for Last Post funding under the Veterans Burial Regulations as VAC has long recognized the beneficial entitlement of this unique group of Canadian veterans.
We must say that we are somewhat shocked that this appeal had proven necessary, given the history of the Canadian Hong Kong veterans and the horrific experience they suffered as POWs of the Japanese in World War II for some 44 months – the devastating story of the abuse, torture, starvation and gross violations of human rights has long led us to the irrefutable conclusion that the family of a Hong Kong veteran should automatically receive Last Post funding as a "Matter of Right."
The War Amps/NCVA takes the strong position that all Hong Kong veterans should, as a "Matter of Right," be entitled to Last Post funding under the Veterans Burial Regulations – in our submission, no family of a Hong Kong veteran who suffered the physical, mental and psychological trauma of life in Japanese POW camps in World War II should be required to demonstrate the interrelationship of this experience on the ultimate demise of the veteran – surely it is self‑evident.
There is no doubt, in our considered opinion, that the death of a Hong Kong veteran is at least, in part, a consequence of his World War II experience and the multiple pensioned conditions that such a veteran has endured his entire life.
It remains our hope that this particular case reflects an aberration with regard to Last Post funding claims, and we would advise that in the last year we have achieved success in the greater majority of Hong Kong veteran claims with regard to Last Post funding. However, it is clear that we must be vigilant in this context and thus we have continued to mount a comprehensive campaign to provide an "education" to the Department and ensure that all adjudicators are properly informed as to the tragic history of Canada's Hong Kong veterans.
That NCVA continue to pressure the Minister of Veterans Affairs to ensure that, at a very minimum, seriously disabled veterans entitled to a disability pension at 78 percent or more (SDVs) qualify, as a matter of right, under the Veterans Burial Regulations/Last Post Fund.
That VAC address the inequities that still exist in the Last Post Fund in relation to widening the standard for income/asset exemption under the regulations and expanding the eligibility criteria to include a higher number of deserving traditional veterans and modern‑day veterans.
Over the last number of years, we have discussed at considerable length that the former Federal Government had proposed or implemented major changes to Public Service benefits and pensions including:
Once again, I have requested Chuck McCabe of the Armed Forces Pensioners'/Annuitants' Association of Canada to brief this year's NCVA Annual Meeting on these contentious issues with reference to impact on the veterans' community.
Given the "ostensible change" that Prime Minister Trudeau has invoked with reference to the improvement of the relationship between the Federal Government and the Public Service, it will be interesting to see whether this alteration in attitude will impact upon these particular government programs and proposals – again, a true litmus test as to the validity and reality of these political commitments made during an election campaign.
With respect to our ongoing initiative vis‑à‑vis CAF retirees and "marriage after sixty":
It is again noteworthy that the Liberal 2015 election platform specifically indicated that it was the intention to "…eliminate the marriage after sixty claw back clause so that surviving spouses of veterans receive appropriate pension and health benefits." As I indicated previously, if our dear friend Helen Rapp were still with us, she would be extremely pleased to see this dramatic change in political attitude emanating from the Liberal Government. Hopefully this policy will become a reality after so many years of tortuous advocacy to obtain this legislative amendment.
In addition, other concerns and inequities resulting from the operation of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA) have been identified and deserve our attention:
As discussed at last year's Annual General Meeting, the Public Service Superannuation Act does not currently account for prior military service that has been transferred to the plan when determining the age at which a plan member can begin to draw an unreduced pension. As a result, some veterans employed in the Public Service will have to wait five years longer to receive a pension when compared to non‑veteran employees with the same period of pensionable service with the Federal Government. It is noteworthy that an exception is already made in the law to avoid a similar situation facing RCMP civilian members and it is essential that NCVA advocate a similar change for military veterans.
In reality, when transitioning from the CAF to the Public Service, veterans with at least two years of service have the option to transfer their service from the CFSA to the PSSA, thus consolidating their pensionable service with the Federal Government under the PSSA.
As part of the Jobs and Growth Act (2012), the PSSA was amended to divide plan members into two groups: those who joined the plan before January 1, 2013 (Group I) and those who joined on or after that date (Group II). Members of Group I are entitled to an unreduced pension at age 60, or at age 55 with at least 30 years of service, while members of Group II must wait until age 65, or age 60 with at least 30 years of service.
At the time of this change, no provision was made to include in Group I CAF veterans who transferred pre‑2013 military service to the PSSA. As a result, all CAF veterans joining the Public Service after January 1, 2013 become members of Group II, even if their combined military and civilian pensionable service under the PSSA began before that date.
NB: It is to be noted that this concern is the matter of Private Member's Bill C‑357 introduced by Alupa Clarke, Conservative Member of Parliament for Beauport‑Limoilou, and is currently before Parliament – we have advised Mr. Clarke that we are fully supportive of his initiative for this statutory amendment.
That NCVA monitor developments with reference to the Federal Government's position on public service pensions ("target pensions") and health care programs and engage the Government as required to protect the interests of veterans and their dependants.
NCVA adopts the position that the Public Service Health Care Plan be amended so that seriously disabled veterans and their families be exempted from paying premiums for such coverage or, alternatively, that VAC should cover these contributions so as to alleviate this financial burden on seriously disabled veterans and their dependants.
That NCVA continue to pressure the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence on behalf of the aforementioned class of surviving spouses so as to allow the spouse of a Canadian Armed Forces retiree marrying after 60 to be eligible for survivor's benefits without reducing the amount of superannuation in payment to the retiree in accordance with the Liberal Party's election platform of 2015.
NCVA recommends that, to ensure fairness for CAF veterans employed in the public service and consistency with existing government policies, the definition of Group I under the PSSA be amended to include CAF members who have elected to transfer their pensionable military service from the CFSA to the PSSA where the start date of the military service was before January 1, 2013.
NCVA will continue to monitor the operation of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to ensure that the interests of veterans and their dependants are protected and that inequities are remedied by the Federal Government departments charged with the responsibility of administering the CFSA.
With reference to the longstanding grievance of the Aboriginal veterans in relation to their claim for compensation for post‑World War II/Korea benefits, it is potentially of significant import that the Liberal Party's 2015 election platform suggested that the Government wishes to bolster financial assistance in recognition of the unique historical culture of the Aboriginal community. In my view, this may be an opportunity to reinvigorate our support for the Aboriginal veterans in their claim against the Canadian Government which is based on overwhelming evidence that the Aboriginal veterans were denied full access to benefits under the initial Veterans Charter of 1945, which amounted to a form of "systemic discrimination."
It will be remembered that, some years ago, The War Amputations of Canada initiated a legal petition in the United Nations Human Rights Committee in an attempt to pressure the Canadian Government on the substance of the claim. The claim, although gaining appropriate exposure to this particular grievance, was not fully successful in the United Nations Human Rights Tribunal due to the ostensible limitation periods that exist in that particular jurisdiction.
It is extremely noteworthy, in this context, that Minister Seamus O'Regan, in a Press Release issued on September 21, 2017, has made the following comments and observations surrounding this longstanding grievance of Canada's Métis Veterans with reference to post‑World War II/Korea compensation.
Those who have proudly served in Canada's armed forces have proven time and again that personal sacrifice in the face of injustice and tyranny can literally change the world. That was true a century ago at Vimy Ridge. It was true 75 years ago in Dieppe. And, it remains true to this day, for those thousands upon thousands of Canadians who served more recently in Afghanistan and other areas of conflict around the world.
The people of Canada are steadfast in their desire that each and every Canadian Veteran is cared for, that their service is respected and that they receive the help they need, when they need it. Throughout our history, Canadian governments have worked to ensure that the will of the people is carried out.
In April 2017, the Government of Canada and the Métis Nation signed a permanent bilateral agreement, called the Canada‑Métis Nation Accord. At that time, the President of the Métis National Council spoke about the need to address, in a timely manner, the recognition of Métis Veterans who served our great country and reconciling the longstanding grievance of the Métis Veterans in relation to their claim for compensation for post‑World War II benefits.
As David Chartrand, the Minister of Social Development – Métis Nation has previously noted, it is vital we learn from our past to do what's right to correct those wrongs; the Métis Veterans have waited for over 70 years for Canada to keep their promise and we may finally have a government to correct that wrong.
Veterans Affairs Canada recognizes that the Métis Nation has long raised this as an issue and is committed to bringing it to resolution. To do so, the Government of Canada will begin work immediately, in partnership with the Métis Nation, to address concerns that there have been past discriminatory practices of Métis Nation Veterans. The scope of this work will include the service of World War II Métis Veterans and will consider whatever information sources are available. The outcome we seek is to identify any discriminatory practices that may be discovered and to take concrete action, in the spirit of reconciliation, to address these findings.
No matter their background, any individual who serves in Canada's armed forces must be treated fairly and equitably by the Government of Canada.
It is also of significance that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has been studying issues concerning Aboriginal veterans over the last number of months and will be making recommendations to Parliament in the near future.
That NCVA continue to reinstate its support to the Aboriginal veterans in their claim against the Canadian Government to provide an ex gratia payment as compensation for benefits denied to them following their service in World War II or Korea.
© 2019 NCVA