Author Topic: Comments on Proposed Changes to New Veterans Charter Regulations  (Read 889 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 1546
    • View Profile
    • Canadian Veterans Advocacy
Comments on Proposed Changes to New Veterans Charter Regulations

From: Walter [mailto:wcallaghan@]
Sent: August-08-11 4:04 PM
To: 'Guy Parent';;
Cc: 'Annick Papillon'; 'Ben Lobb'; 'Brian Storseth'; 'Clerk of the Committee (ACVA)'; 'Devinder Shory'; 'Eve Adams'; 'Greg Kerr'; 'Irene Mathyssen'; 'Joe Daniel'; 'Peter Stoffer'; 'Rejean Genest'; 'Sean Casey'; 'Wladyslaw Lizon'; 'Andrew Davidson'; 'Bryn Weese'; 'Canadian Press'; 'CBC Information Morning Nova Scotia'; 'CBC Power & Politics'; 'Chronicle Herald'; 'CTV Newsroom'; 'Doug Hempstead'; 'Globe & Mail Newsroom'; 'Gordon Delaney'; 'Ian Elliot'; 'Jason Halstead'; 'Jeff Davis'; 'John Ivison'; 'Jonathan Sher'; 'Karina Roman'; 'Kathleen Harris'; 'Kathryn May'; 'Laura Fraser'; 'Laura Payton'; 'Les Leyne'; 'Lianne Elliott'; 'Linda Nguyen'; 'Louise Elliott'; 'Marilla Stephenson'; 'Matt Gurney'; 'Mellissa Fung'; 'Mercedes Stephenson'; 'Mia Rabson'; 'Michael Gorman'; 'Michael Staples'; 'Nadia Moharib'; 'Paul MacNeill'; 'Paul Schneidereit'; 'Randy Richmond'; 'Rosie DiManno'; 'Scott Taylor'; 'Shawn Apel'; 'Stephen Maher'; 'Tobias Fisher'; 'Vik Kirsch'; 'W5/CTV'; 'Bob Rae'; 'Carolyn Bennett'; 'Elizabeth May'; 'Jack Layton'; 'John Percy'; 'Kirsty Duncan'; 'Maria Minna'; 'Olivia Chow'; 'Donald Neil Plett'; 'Joseph A. Day'; 'LGen Romeo Dallaire'; 'Pamela Wallin'; 'Pierre Claude Nolin'; 'Angela Benedict'; 'Bonnie Toews'; 'CJ Wallace'; Dennis Manuge; 'Jeff Esau'; 'John Labelle'; 'Michael Blais'; 'OVO Comms'; 'OVO Info'; 'Percy Downe'; Sean Bruyea; 'Sylvain Chartrand'; 'Veteran Voice'
Subject: Comments on Proposed Changes to New Veterans Charter Regulations
Importance: High

8 August 2011

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. (

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 (, 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

Canadian Veterans Advocacy - One Veteran One Standard

Web Site:

Main FaceBook Group:

Main FaceBook Page: