Some of Canada’s most severely disabled veterans face poverty in old age if Parliament does not act quickly and effectively to upgrade the New Veterans Charter, says Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent.  

“It’s an urgent need,” Parent said at a press conference Oct. 1 where he publicly released his report on improvements needed to the charter, formally known as the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act. Seven years after the Charter came into force, and more than two years after it was amended to bolster financial benefits, “there are still serious deficiencies that need to be addressed,” he said.

The report identifies gaps in three key areas: financial instability and decreased standard of living; limitations in vocational rehabilitation and assistance; and insufficient family support.

The ombudsman’s recommendations “will serve as an important starting point for the upcoming parliamentary review,” of the charter, responded Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino. He added that special focus will be placed on services for the most seriously injured and for families.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs began reviewing the New Veterans Charter in November. Fantino also asked the committee to investigate spelling out the government’s social contract with veterans, after consulting with veterans and veterans’ advocates. The ombudsman and The Royal Canadian Legion urged quick action, rather than extended talk. “Protracted review is not what is needed now,” said Dominion President Gordon Moore. Reports and recommendations over the years provide a blueprint for changes that can be implemented quickly, they said.

The ombudsman’s recommendations are based on a rigorous analysis pinpointing weaknesses of the charter and how to fix them. The costs of the remedies, spread over a number of years, are estimated at about $70 million for increasing disability awards, $8 million to $10 million annually to increase access to the Permanent Incapacity Allowance and Supplement, and $30 million for changes to the Earnings Loss Benefit over the life of that program. But those costs pale in relation to the cost of inaction, said Parent. “We either deal with these issues now or we are going to have to deal with the human cost later, when it will cost us much more,” Parent said, not to mention the human cost, which he described as “humongous.”

The most urgent concern is financial support of permanently disabled veterans. The Earnings Loss Benefit, meant to ensure that income of the permanently disabled and those in the charter’s vocational rehabilitation programs does not fall below 75 per cent of gross pre-release salary, ceases after the age of 65. This is a particular hardship for veterans permanently disabled at a young age or with few years of pensionable service. Their benefits are tied to a lower salary until retirement age and they are unable to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan or save for retirement.

VAC has assessed 1,428 veterans as totally and permanently incapacitated; the ombudsman found loss of the Earnings Loss Benefit will severely affect more than 400 who receive no allowances and have no Canadian Armed Forces pension. Some, the report says, “are at risk of living their retirement years below the poverty level.” That number will increase as more and more veterans reach retirement age, said Parent.

Among recommendations to improve financial support are increasing the Earnings Loss Benefit to 90 per cent from 75 per cent of gross pre-release salary in order to maintain the same after-tax income, as well as providing extra financial support after the age of 65 so permanently disabled veterans receive no less than 70 per cent of indexed pre-release salary. As well, part-time reservists should receive the same benefit as regular forces.

Although eligibility was widened in 2011, more than half of VAC’s permanently disabled clients do not receive the Permanent Impairment Allowance or Supplement, taxable monthly sums to make up for lost job opportunities or an inability to work. The report recommends providing these allowances to all veterans so assessed.

The ombudsman also recommends the maximum for disability awards (now $298,588) should be increased to match the maximum awarded by Canadian courts, currently about $342,000. He also recommends research to determine the appropriate maximum amount of compensation to Canadian Armed Forces members and veterans for pain and suffering.

Chief recommendations for improving vocational rehabilitation and assistance call for more flexibility. The focus on building on current skills limits future career options. For instance, a veteran who was a medical assistant should not be denied the opportunity to complete a university program in nursing “simply because (of) previous training and experience that would qualify him or her to become a paramedic more quickly and at lower cost.” Those with the will and aptitude to train for an attainable career change should be supported to do so.

The ombudsman recommended paying all costs associated with post-secondary education.  Changes have been made to the vocational rehabilitation program expanding the list of training expenses, and providing an overall funding envelope to a maximum of $75,800 per person.

The report criticizes VAC’s track record in monitoring its vocational rehabilitation programs, which can be determined by tracking whether veterans find and remain in jobs. This research is key to determining if programs are effective at helping veterans make the transition to civilian life and to guide changes.

Although the charter increases VAC’s capacity to respond to families, there are unmet needs, says the report, especially for families of the severely disabled. Financial and emotional strain ensues when spouses can neither afford to leave their jobs to look after a disabled veteran, nor afford to hire someone else to do so. The report recommends compensation for spouses or family members who act as primary caregivers to disabled veterans.

Other recommendations include providing family counselling, extending access to Military Family Resource Centre programs and services after the medical release of the CF member, harmonizing CF and VAC family financial assistance, eliminating the time limit for surviving spouses to apply for vocational rehabilitation and assistance and allowing disabled veterans’ families access to the same dental service coverage as provided by the Public Service Health Care Plan.

The report also addresses the debate about whether veterans would be better off under the charter or Pension Act. The report, Parent said, “sets the stage for an informed debate” that looks at both the financial benefits, meant to ensure income, and non-economic benefits, such as the charter’s disability award, popularly called the lump-sum payment, which compensates for pain and suffering. “In general,” says the report, the charter “provides more money to the veteran than the Pension Act, but the effects of taxation result in less money in the veteran’s pocket.” The charter’s Permanent Impairment Allowance and Supplement are taxable, while the Pension Act’s Attendance Allowance is not. Non-economic benefits are better under the Pension Act.

Finally, said Parent, the federal government could ensure the charter lives up to its initial billing as a living document by mandating a review every two years, ensuring it continually improves to meet the unmet and evolving needs of veterans and their families.