- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Time for a 24 hour cooling off period.
If you were drafting a response, save it and review it tomorrow with a cooler head.
Army.ca Staff
The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread
- Thread starter Scoobie Newbie
- Start date
Time for a 24 hour cooling off period.
If you were drafting a response, save it and review it tomorrow with a cooler head.
Army.ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Denying death benefit to single soldiers unconstitutional: expert
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, June 04, 2007 Article tools
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=a2351fac-e675-4cd9-9eb9-799d422e7f32&k=59531
OTTAWA — The Conservative government's denial of a $250,000 death benefit to the families of unmarried soldiers killed in Afghanistan is a policy that's begging to be challenged before a court or human rights tribunal, says a constitutional expert.
Errol Mendes of the University of Ottawa says it's clearly established in law that discrimination based on marital status violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and he wonders why Veterans Affairs still supports the practice.
"There is a compelling case on the part of single soldiers," Mendes said Monday.
"Whether or not there is a legal case, there is a huge moral, social, ethical and political reason why the government should be covering this."
The death benefit — available only to married soldiers — is part of the new Veterans Charter, which was passed with all party support in 2005.
Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson denied there's an inequity — legal or otherwise.
"It's not discriminatory, it's very consistent with all of the programs that preceded the new Veterans Charter," Thompson said.
The purpose of the lump-sum payment was to help widows and orphaned children of soldiers re-establish themselves and deal with such things as moving from life in the military to the civilian world.
"The death benefit was never intended to be life insurance where there is a designated beneficiary," said Thompson, who added that he's not contemplating any changes to the current policy.
Soldiers with no dependants are encouraged to take out life insurance to provide for family members such as parents, Thompson said, but he acknowledged it's not mandatory and many don't do it.
The government's response disappointed Mendes, who said the minister is "leaving the families little option than to consider" a human rights complaint or legal action.
It also upset the mother of an unmarried soldier who died in Afghanistan in 2005.
"This just isn't right in this country in this day in age," said Beverley Woodfield, mother of Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, 24.
Like the fight to increase the funeral stipend for soldiers killed in action, Mendes said the death benefit is another battle that shouldn't have to happen: "These people have sacrificed their lives for the rest of us and I think it's very sad they may be forced to start this process."
Last week, the parents of another unmarried soldier, Cpl. Matthew Dinning who died in a roadside bomb attack in April 2006, also criticized the policy.
During a news conference over the failure of National Defence to cover all of the costs associated with his son's funeral, Lincoln Dinning quoted from a letter he wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper on April 25. In it, he complained that his son had faced discrimination because he did not qualify for the $250,000 death benefit and was therefore "worth $0 in your government's eyes."
On Monday, the Dinnings received a cheque for the outstanding portion of their son's funeral costs and a letter from Harper, which said he was raising the death benefit concerns with both Thompson and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.
Woodfield spoke out on the issue last summer, prompting New Democrat veterans affairs Peter Stoffer write Thompson, suggesting all soldiers be allowed to receive the payment and to designate a beneficiary.
"It would cost them money and it's all about dollars and cents," Stoffer said Monday.
"(The government are the) first ones to say support the troops and if you even dare question the Conservatives on any aspect of the troops, they go crazy on you. When these soldiers pay the ultimate sacrifice their families end up in a fight all over again."
Woodfield, who keeps in regular contact with her son's buddies serving overseas, said unmarried soldiers would welcome an expanded benefit, but are reluctant to speak out for fear of being disciplined and the families of many of those killed are still too distraught to speak out.
"That is a sad state of affairs in this country," she said from her home in Dartmouth, N.S.
"People in this case are grieving and mourning of an ultimate loss and this case its parents grieving and mourning the ultimate loss of a child of theirs. They have to step out of that dark box and say, this is not right that they have to go to this length to be heard."
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, June 04, 2007 Article tools
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=a2351fac-e675-4cd9-9eb9-799d422e7f32&k=59531
OTTAWA — The Conservative government's denial of a $250,000 death benefit to the families of unmarried soldiers killed in Afghanistan is a policy that's begging to be challenged before a court or human rights tribunal, says a constitutional expert.
Errol Mendes of the University of Ottawa says it's clearly established in law that discrimination based on marital status violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and he wonders why Veterans Affairs still supports the practice.
"There is a compelling case on the part of single soldiers," Mendes said Monday.
"Whether or not there is a legal case, there is a huge moral, social, ethical and political reason why the government should be covering this."
The death benefit — available only to married soldiers — is part of the new Veterans Charter, which was passed with all party support in 2005.
Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson denied there's an inequity — legal or otherwise.
"It's not discriminatory, it's very consistent with all of the programs that preceded the new Veterans Charter," Thompson said.
The purpose of the lump-sum payment was to help widows and orphaned children of soldiers re-establish themselves and deal with such things as moving from life in the military to the civilian world.
"The death benefit was never intended to be life insurance where there is a designated beneficiary," said Thompson, who added that he's not contemplating any changes to the current policy.
Soldiers with no dependants are encouraged to take out life insurance to provide for family members such as parents, Thompson said, but he acknowledged it's not mandatory and many don't do it.
The government's response disappointed Mendes, who said the minister is "leaving the families little option than to consider" a human rights complaint or legal action.
It also upset the mother of an unmarried soldier who died in Afghanistan in 2005.
"This just isn't right in this country in this day in age," said Beverley Woodfield, mother of Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, 24.
Like the fight to increase the funeral stipend for soldiers killed in action, Mendes said the death benefit is another battle that shouldn't have to happen: "These people have sacrificed their lives for the rest of us and I think it's very sad they may be forced to start this process."
Last week, the parents of another unmarried soldier, Cpl. Matthew Dinning who died in a roadside bomb attack in April 2006, also criticized the policy.
During a news conference over the failure of National Defence to cover all of the costs associated with his son's funeral, Lincoln Dinning quoted from a letter he wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper on April 25. In it, he complained that his son had faced discrimination because he did not qualify for the $250,000 death benefit and was therefore "worth $0 in your government's eyes."
On Monday, the Dinnings received a cheque for the outstanding portion of their son's funeral costs and a letter from Harper, which said he was raising the death benefit concerns with both Thompson and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.
Woodfield spoke out on the issue last summer, prompting New Democrat veterans affairs Peter Stoffer write Thompson, suggesting all soldiers be allowed to receive the payment and to designate a beneficiary.
"It would cost them money and it's all about dollars and cents," Stoffer said Monday.
"(The government are the) first ones to say support the troops and if you even dare question the Conservatives on any aspect of the troops, they go crazy on you. When these soldiers pay the ultimate sacrifice their families end up in a fight all over again."
Woodfield, who keeps in regular contact with her son's buddies serving overseas, said unmarried soldiers would welcome an expanded benefit, but are reluctant to speak out for fear of being disciplined and the families of many of those killed are still too distraught to speak out.
"That is a sad state of affairs in this country," she said from her home in Dartmouth, N.S.
"People in this case are grieving and mourning of an ultimate loss and this case its parents grieving and mourning the ultimate loss of a child of theirs. They have to step out of that dark box and say, this is not right that they have to go to this length to be heard."
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
This increase on par with a typical funeral for 2007?
Yrys
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
I would say it depend on what you are spending... In 1989 I put my mother under ground for
less then a thousand, which was a lot less then a funeral those days. I had her incinerate,
as she had wishes, with no exposition, so no coffin, which save a lot of money.
less then a thousand, which was a lot less then a funeral those days. I had her incinerate,
as she had wishes, with no exposition, so no coffin, which save a lot of money.
Denying death payment to single soldiers' families discriminatory, family claims
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 6/06/2010
Article Link
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is examining whether Ottawa discriminates against families of single soldiers killed overseas by excluding them from a quarter-million dollar death benefit.
The Canadian Press has learned the agency plans to convene a tribunal hearing some time in the next few months. It will weigh the complaint of an Ontario couple whose son Cpl. Matthew Dinning died in a roadside bomb attack in Kandahar four years ago.
"Married and single soldiers have fought side-by-side in Afghanistan, they wore the same uniform, they died for the same country, the caskets were draped in the same flag, they should be treated the same as far as death benefits go," Lincoln Dinning said in an interview from his Wingham, Ont. home.
"It's a moral and ethical issue. And it's about treating all fallen soldiers the same."
Whenever a married Canadian soldier is killed in action, the surviving spouse and children are eligible for a one-time, $250,000 lump-sum payment meant to help them with the costs of transitioning to civilian life. The cash is on top of whatever life insurance a soldier may carry.
But single soldiers are excluded from the benefit, which was introduced when the Conservative government implemented the new Veterans Charter in 2006. The charter fundamentally reorganized the way former soldiers, sailors and aircrew are treated after they retire and the benefits their families receive.
"This is not about money because $250,000, (nor) $250 million is going to bring any of the soldiers back," Dinning said. "It's about treating all fallen soldiers the same, with dignity and respect, regardless of their marital status."
Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn would not comment on the specifics of the human rights case, but said the payment was implemented after careful consideration.
Under the old system, the federal government paid only a supplementary death benefit, calculated at two times the member's annual earnings. The cash went to the spouse, or another designated beneficiary of the soldier. If there was no beneficiary, the money would go into the estate.
The $250,000 payment under the new charter was described as an improvement by federal officials, but in order to implement it in 2005-06 they had to narrow the existing definition of eligible survivor, according to documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information legislation.
"The new definition 'surviving family' will be added and defined as 'surviving eligible spouse and dependant children,"' said an analysis of the new charter, dated Aug. 9, 2004.
More on link
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 6/06/2010
Article Link
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is examining whether Ottawa discriminates against families of single soldiers killed overseas by excluding them from a quarter-million dollar death benefit.
The Canadian Press has learned the agency plans to convene a tribunal hearing some time in the next few months. It will weigh the complaint of an Ontario couple whose son Cpl. Matthew Dinning died in a roadside bomb attack in Kandahar four years ago.
"Married and single soldiers have fought side-by-side in Afghanistan, they wore the same uniform, they died for the same country, the caskets were draped in the same flag, they should be treated the same as far as death benefits go," Lincoln Dinning said in an interview from his Wingham, Ont. home.
"It's a moral and ethical issue. And it's about treating all fallen soldiers the same."
Whenever a married Canadian soldier is killed in action, the surviving spouse and children are eligible for a one-time, $250,000 lump-sum payment meant to help them with the costs of transitioning to civilian life. The cash is on top of whatever life insurance a soldier may carry.
But single soldiers are excluded from the benefit, which was introduced when the Conservative government implemented the new Veterans Charter in 2006. The charter fundamentally reorganized the way former soldiers, sailors and aircrew are treated after they retire and the benefits their families receive.
"This is not about money because $250,000, (nor) $250 million is going to bring any of the soldiers back," Dinning said. "It's about treating all fallen soldiers the same, with dignity and respect, regardless of their marital status."
Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn would not comment on the specifics of the human rights case, but said the payment was implemented after careful consideration.
Under the old system, the federal government paid only a supplementary death benefit, calculated at two times the member's annual earnings. The cash went to the spouse, or another designated beneficiary of the soldier. If there was no beneficiary, the money would go into the estate.
The $250,000 payment under the new charter was described as an improvement by federal officials, but in order to implement it in 2005-06 they had to narrow the existing definition of eligible survivor, according to documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information legislation.
"The new definition 'surviving family' will be added and defined as 'surviving eligible spouse and dependant children,"' said an analysis of the new charter, dated Aug. 9, 2004.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 7
- Points
- 230
I'm going to disagree, with a minor amendment. All eligible dependants should get the same death benefit. So, any kids and spouses, common-law or the regular kind.
However, if your next of kin is a non-dependant parent, uncle, etc, then no. The death benefits are there to help ensure that people who were previously relying upon the member to support them do not become destitute as a result.
However, if your next of kin is a non-dependant parent, uncle, etc, then no. The death benefits are there to help ensure that people who were previously relying upon the member to support them do not become destitute as a result.
- Reaction score
- 1,332
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
Links:
"The death gratuity payment is $12,420, and is non-taxable. For those whose death is as a result of hostile actions and occurred in a designated combat operation or combat zone or while training for combat or performing hazardous duty, the payment is $100,000":
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/casualty/blgratuity.htm
http://www.military.com/benefits/survivor-benefits/death-gratuity
Stars and Stripes: "New rule makes troops’ death gratuity more flexible":
http://www.stripes.com/news/new-rule-makes-troops-death-gratuity-more-flexible-1.67315
DexOlesa said:
In theory. But that isn't how it is being applied. What about service spouses? Or spouses that have gainful employment? I'm pretty sure they qualify. One rule should apply to all. The American rules shown above seem reasonable.
- Reaction score
- 22,113
- Points
- 1,090
Keep in mind that the $250K payment (as of 2008 just over $260K, due to inflationary adjustments) is on top of the Supplementary Death Benefit (SDB) amount of 2 years pay. The SDB is paid to a beneficiary specified by the member, if no beneficiary is specified it is paid to the estate.
See http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cen/pub/ddb-pdi/sbcdrf-spcdfr-eng.asp#sbc-spc-08
See http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cen/pub/ddb-pdi/sbcdrf-spcdfr-eng.asp#sbc-spc-08
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Crantor said:
They are still household dependants aren't they?? Living in and supporting the deceased member's household?
Quite unlike parents living somewhere else, in another household and supporting their own particular household vice the member's.
So is that the definition to which the benefit applies to? Household dependant? How about a single soldier taking care of an aging parent? Or a disabled brother?
I'm asking because I don't know. If it is defined as a household dependant ok. Or is it defined by what would be a legal dependant. for instance a child living fulltime with a parent who is divorced from a service member. But some people are reasoning that it is there to help spouses who may not have a job or the member was a the only bread winner. This isn't the case. Are there other factors that help determine this? Like overall combined salaries? Where they lived ie base versus their own house? Again I'm asking vecause I don't know.
But as I stated before, the american system of determining who qualifies seems pretty reasonable.
I'm asking because I don't know. If it is defined as a household dependant ok. Or is it defined by what would be a legal dependant. for instance a child living fulltime with a parent who is divorced from a service member. But some people are reasoning that it is there to help spouses who may not have a job or the member was a the only bread winner. This isn't the case. Are there other factors that help determine this? Like overall combined salaries? Where they lived ie base versus their own house? Again I'm asking vecause I don't know.
But as I stated before, the american system of determining who qualifies seems pretty reasonable.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Crantor said:
Here's how I look at it, as already mentionned by someone else in this thread: the benfit is intended to assist the deceased member's dependants at going on with their lives while suffering a lesser impact upon their household finances. Helping them relocate etc. Don't forget, whether the wife works or not, it is this member's immediate dependants in his immediate household who will suffer the finacial impact associated with the loss of his income over the remainder of years. Regardless of whether the spouse works or not, their financial QOL and financial income will be the one decreasing due to his death; they may very well be accustomed to living off two incomes and that will not be the case any more and their standard of living will now decrease regardless because of the loss of the deceased's loss of income. This benefit is meant to assist with and defray those financial implications.
The same can not be said for parents residing in another household whom neither were supported by, nor living in the deceased's household; the member was not financially responsible for them. The loss of this member has no financial impact upon their financial situation in the future.
Although both households will certainly experience the loss of QOL and companionship created by the member's loss, the long term financial implications of loss of income are restricted to only one.
My .02 worth.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Crantor said:
And, here's my take on "treating everyone the same" ...
Imagine the soldier who is married and with kids who receive this benefit. If this goes through and the parents of a single member who were not financially dependant upon him receive it, then it must also be given to the parents of MARRIED service members as well even though the member's immediate household already got it.
Why?? Because it wouldn't be fair either to financially compensate parents of single members who suffered no financial loss while not also compensating a married member's parents too even though they also suffer no financial loss. So, if a single's guys parents receive it even though they suffer no financial implications from his loss of income, so should the married guys parents.
Parents are parents - you can't tell the married member's parents they can't have it just because their son was "married". "Treat all the same", you said that.
The benefit is meant to offest long-term financial implications that would be experienced by the member's dependants who were dependant upon his income at the time of death. It's a whole lot smaller can of worms if we keep it that way.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
According to the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, which is the legislation which provides for the $250k death benefit:
57. (1) The Minister may, on application, pay, in accordance with section 59, a death benefit to a member’s survivor or a person who was, at the time of the member’s death, a dependent child if
(a) the member dies as a result of a service related injury or disease; and
(b) the member’s death occurs within 30 days after the day on which the injury occurred or the disease was contracted.
There are very clear definitions as to who constitutes a survivor and dependent child in the legislation.
That's the official legalese on who the $250k is supposed to go to.
57. (1) The Minister may, on application, pay, in accordance with section 59, a death benefit to a member’s survivor or a person who was, at the time of the member’s death, a dependent child if
(a) the member dies as a result of a service related injury or disease; and
(b) the member’s death occurs within 30 days after the day on which the injury occurred or the disease was contracted.
There are very clear definitions as to who constitutes a survivor and dependent child in the legislation.
That's the official legalese on who the $250k is supposed to go to.
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
DexOlesa said:
Not true. Dependents of deceased members are entitled to a move at public expense as if the member were alive and released. The $250K is in addition to the moving costs. Plus, the CF/Brookfield still makes all the arrangements (hires the moving company, books flights, etc.)
ArmyVern
Ok, I understand that point of view. Economic hardship caused by that death isn't the same for say adult parents collecting a pension.
But I am still curious as what is defined as a dependant. You mentioned household dependant. I'm pretty sure it isn't the legal definition per se but does that still apply to child of a parent whose mother/father divorced and remarried and suffers no economic hardship as a result. It just seems very grey about the intent vs. the use.
Ok, I understand that point of view. Economic hardship caused by that death isn't the same for say adult parents collecting a pension.
But I am still curious as what is defined as a dependant. You mentioned household dependant. I'm pretty sure it isn't the legal definition per se but does that still apply to child of a parent whose mother/father divorced and remarried and suffers no economic hardship as a result. It just seems very grey about the intent vs. the use.
Similar threads
