A new analysis of money paid to disabled vets by Canada's closest allies raises questions about the Conservative government's claim that its support for injured troops is world class
A new analysis reveals that Canadians injured in the line of duty are eligible for significantly less financial compensation than the amounts provided to disabled soldiers in the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States – raising questions about the Conservative government’s claim that its support for wounded veterans is world-class.
The Conservatives are fighting the perception that the party, which styles itself as pro-military, is failing veterans as Canada transitions from serving elderly veterans of the Second World War and Korea to helping a smaller number of young Afghanistan veterans who are suffering from psychological illnesses and debilitating physical injuries.
Veterans Affairs Minister Erin O’Toole, who replaced Julian Fantino in the portfolio earlier this year, is vowing to take steps in the coming months to repair relations with those veterans, a politically sensitive constituency in advance of this year’s federal election.
On Monday, Mr. O’Toole unveiled a new retirement benefit aimed at giving moderate and severely injured soldiers a monthly income support payment beginning at age 65.
But many veterans say those moves are just tinkering. They argue they are getting a raw deal under the New Veterans Charter, which was passed into law in 2006 and replaced a system that provided veterans with lifetime pensions.
An analysis of the money paid to disabled vets by Canada’s closest allies suggests those concerns may be well founded.
Whether it is a comparison of lump sums awarded according to the level of injury, or the ongoing payments meant to replace the incomes of those who can no longer do their jobs, Canada’s remuneration comes up short – in some cases by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“Veterans benefits around the world are universally complex to both access and understand,” said Sean Bruyea, a retired Air Force captain and veteran’s advocate who helped The Globe and Mail obtain and analyze the numbers from other countries.
But “veterans instinctively know that the programs under the New Veterans Charter are deficient,” Mr. Bruyea said. “For the government to tell them otherwise really is just stepping on veterans’ hearts and destroying their dignity.”
Trying to compare the compensation offered by the Canada, Britain, Australia and the United States is difficult because each jurisdiction provides money to its veterans in different ways, and all four countries have additional programs that go beyond direct financial compensation. In Canada, for instance, the Veterans Affairs department provides an independent living program that includes grounds-keeping among other home-care services.
In addition, the level of service to veterans is not equal. There have been complaints in the United States, for instance, about a huge backlog of unprocessed claims. And the delivery of health care is not the same on both sides of the border.
But, looking solely at the money paid to those injured while they were in the military, this country lags behind.
While Canada offers lump-sum payments of as much as $306,698.21 to its veterans depending on the level of their injury, Britain will pay up to the equivalent of more than $1-million Canadian dollars.
Australia’s maximum lump-sum payment is in excess of $400,000 (Canadian), and veterans in that country can choose instead to receive a non-taxable, weekly pension which can amount to more than $900,000 for a soldier who retires in his 20s and lives into his 80s. Lump sums are also given to children of disabled Australian veterans, which does not happen in Canada.
The United States provides a tax-free disability pension that ranges as high as $4,010 (Canadian) per month, depending on the level of injury and the number of dependents. In addition, there are supplements of up to $10,836 (Canadian) monthly for the most seriously disabled.
Canada has a program that compensates disabled veterans for lost wages which pays 75 per cent of their military salary. This country also provides a permanent impairment allowance and a supplement that can combine to equal a little over $2,700 monthly. But most soldiers who qualify for that allowance receive far less than the maximum, and the money is taxable.
In Australia, on the other hand, the earning-loss compensation can amount to 100 per cent of a veteran’s former salary if he or she is completely unable to work. And in Britain, the most severely disabled veterans receive 100 per cent of their military salary tax-free for life.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has defended his government’s approach to veterans, saying Canada’s programs and services are the best in the world.
Mr. O’Toole, the Veterans Affairs Minister, said there are a number of programs and benefits offered to disabled Canadian soldiers which, when added to the amounts they are paid, makes Canada’s system of compensation one of the best anywhere. “On a category by category comparison,” he said in an e-mail, “some of our allies may have a few items that have stronger support than we have at present, but in other areas they offer less in terms of programming or financial supports.”
Not only does Canada have a good health-care system which in not available in every country, Mr. O’Toole said, but there are medical, rehabilitative, vocational and family supports that aim to return disabled former military personnel to a productive post-service career. And, in terms of the monetary payouts, for soldiers in the lower ranks, the combination of the earnings-loss benefit plus the permanent impairment allowance and the supplement could add up to more than their military salary, the minister said.
The government has spent at least $700,000 fighting a court case against a group of veterans based in British Columbia who argue that the New Veterans Charter violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it does not provide the same level of benefits and support as the system of lifelong pensions it replaced.
Frank Valeriote, the Veterans Affairs critic for the Liberals, said the comparison with other countries “just adds more fuel to the fire of the argument that our veterans have been making and that is that [the benefits] are inaccessible, insufficient and inadequate.”
Peter Stoffer, the NDP critic, said looking at what other nations provide to disabled veterans is a bit of comparing apples to oranges, but “for those who qualify, there is no question that other countries do better than ours when it comes to cash outlay.”