The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread

[Remius]

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.

That clears that up for me.  Thanks.

 

[Remius]

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.

Yes but under the American system (if that info is correct) it is a list of who gets first crack at it.  If you have spouse they get it, then teh children if no spouse exists, then parents etc etc.  It's not everyone gets a piece and that isn't what I'm advocating.  it just sees more reasonable.  i don't see how that would open a can of worms.  The same amount is payed out to the people in whatever order layed out.

 

[Tank Troll]

How about the Reservist that is still living at home and helping that house hold. I personally like the American system it seems to be thought out better. Then again this whole new version of the charter wasn't thought out very well :2c:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

"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."

Mr Dinning, with all due respect sir, I do not equate payment of money to treatment with dignity and respect.

I must say I don't agree with this position and that I think it should go to support surviving dependants only.  If I wasn't married, my parents, who own their house, land, cars, cottage and land it is on, etc and are receiving pensions for service and service injuries, do not need to get $250,000 for me to be treated with dignity and respect.

 

[captloadie]

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.)

I don't think the poster meant literally moving off base, but helping to secure new accomodations (a house, condo, apartment, etc.).

 

[tomahawk6]

No amount of money makes up for the loss of a loved - married or single. If the parents of a fallen soldier are well off maybe they might donate the money to a worthy cause - wounded soldiers,scholarship fund ect or a cause their son/daughter really liked. Others need the money to live on. The US military has a pretty good system with the gratuity,plus SGLI ranging from $50,000 - $400,000 and married spouses receive dependency and indemnity compensationat the monthly rate of $1154 plus $286 for each child. If the family was in government quarters they can remain there for up to a year or if they move off post they can receive can receive a year of Basic Housing Allowance. They are eligible for 45 months of Dependents' Educational Assistance to pursue a degree program or other programs. In addition as long as the spouse doesnt remarry the family receives ID cards that enable them to use on base facilities commissary,px,theater ect. The GWOT forced the military to improve the gratuity and benefits to the survivors of our fallen soldiers.

http://www.military.com/education/content/money-for-school/dependents-educational-assistance-dea.html

 

[armyvern]

No amount of money makes up for the loss of a loved - married or single. If the parents of a fallen soldier are well off maybe they might donate the money to a worthy cause - wounded soldiers,scholarship fund ect or a cause their son/daughter really liked. Others need the money to live on. The US military has a pretty good system with the gratuity,plus SGLI ranging from $50,000 - $400,000 and married spouses receive dependency and indemnity compensationat the monthly rate of $1154 plus $286 for each child. If the family was in government quarters they can remain there for up to a year or if they move off post they can receive can receive a year of Basic Housing Allowance. They are eligible for 45 months of Dependents' Educational Assistance to pursue a degree program or other programs. In addition as long as the spouse doesnt remarry the family receives ID cards that enable them to use on base facilities commissary,px,theater ect. The GWOT forced the military to improve the gratuity and benefits to the survivors of our fallen soldiers.

http://www.military.com/education/content/money-for-school/dependents-educational-assistance-dea.html

I agree with your above.

But, this is merely one of the financial payments our Fallen's families or their designated beneficiaries receive.

This particular payment being discussed is intended to offest the direct financial impact the Fallen's loss of lifelong income in his immediaetly supported household of dependants.

In the case of other financial payments, they are made to the member's designated NOK, beneficiares etc or to the estate. The member's choice. I see nothing wrong with that.

I do see something wrong with the benefit that exists, and is intended, to offset the direct impact upon a household's finances/financial QOL due to the death of their supporting breadwinner being extended to those who do not experience that impact with the deceased's death. One is not like the other and is incomparable.

While the emotional loss is great for both households, the financial loss this benefit exists to offest is simply not likewise applicable.

 

[GAP]

Equalizing death benefits for soldiers would cost $3M
Article Link
The Canadian Press Sunday Mar. 20, 2011 6:42 PM ET

OTTAWA — Veterans Affairs examined but rejected expanding a death benefit paid to families of soldiers killed in the line of duty, say documents filed in a human-rights case that alleges discrimination based on marital status.

The $250,000 payout policy is being challenged in a tribunal hearing that begins Monday in London, Ont.

The father of an unmarried soldier who was ineligible to receive the benefit launched the challenge in 2007.

Lincoln Dinning says the policy, enacted as part of the massive benefits overhaul in the New Veterans Charter, amounts to discrimination because it treats soldiers differently based on marital status. The $250,000 death benefit is paid only to the families of married soldiers.

The Wingham, Ont., man's son, Cpl. Matthew Dinning, was killed by a roadside bomb in Kandahar almost five years ago.

Documents disclosed by Veterans Affairs last week show federal officials were aware of the possible legal ramifications.

"This program may be viewed as placing a greater value on the life of a married soldier than a single soldier," said a Dec. 14, 2007, paper.

The legal justification for sticking with the status quo is blacked out in the documents, although the paper estimates expanding the benefit to cover all soldiers -- married and single -- would cost about $3 million a year under the current wartime conditions.

Less than half of the 154 soldiers killed in Afghanistan have been single.

The disclosure of more than 200 pages of partially censored documents came just before the hearing date.

Dinning said lawyers representing Veterans Affairs have likely seen the uncensored versions and therefore have an advantage in the case.

When a married Canadian soldier is killed in action, the surviving spouse and children are eligible for a one-time, $250,000 lump-sum to help them with the costs of transitioning to civilian life. The cash is on top of whatever life insurance a soldier may carry.

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.

The charter was conceived under Paul Martin's Liberals, but enacted under Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Dinning's argument is supported by the Royal Canadian Legion, according to the disclosure documents. The country's leading voice for veterans' care urged its members in June 2009 to write their MPs and the minister at the time, Greg Thompson.

"How can our government or Veterans Affairs make the distinction that one life is worth more than another life?" said a letter that went out to Legion members. "Do parents, siblings and grandparents suffer less than a spouse?"

Veterans Affairs has argued that the death benefit is not life insurance and the payout is specifically targeted at families. Lawyers for the department, in written submissions, have said the federal government isn't obliged to pay compensation in every circumstance.

Dinning said the case is not about money.

"There must be something here, otherwise the human-rights investigator wouldn't have recommended a hearing," he said.

The Conservatives recently passed changes to the charter after criticism that the most severely disabled soldiers, in the lowest ranks, were short-changed by the system.

Four years ago, Dinning battled with Ottawa over the Defence Department's funeral stipend for fallen soldiers, which had not been raised in a decade.
end

 

[OldSolduer]

I'll be watching this with interest.

 

[Occam]

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.

???

That's SDB - and it had nothing with Pension Act/New Veterans Charter.  It has nothing to do with the Death Benefit under the NVC, and is a separate benefit.

 

[OldSolduer]

The SDB is a different program and has nothing to do with VAC.

Why did VAC decide not to give a single soldier the same as SISIP?

 

[Occam]

Why did VAC decide not to give a single soldier the same as SISIP?

SISIP doesn't have anything to do with the VAC Death Benefit, either.  We've got to make sure apples are being compared to apples.

I'm not sure why the original story referenced the SDB in the first place - it exists regardless of whether Pension Act or NVC is in play.

The terms of the VAC Death Benefit specify it is to go to surviving spouse/common-law partner and/or surviving dependent child(ren) of a member.  If none exists, then there is no payout; hence the legal challenge that the families of single soldiers are discriminated against on the basis of marital status.

 

[OldSolduer]

SISIP doesn't have anything to do with the VAC Death Benefit, either.  We've got to make sure apples are being compared to apples.

I'm not sure why the original story referenced the SDB in the first place - it exists regardless of whether Pension Act or NVC is in play.

The terms of the VAC Death Benefit specify it is to go to surviving spouse/common-law partner and/or surviving dependent child(ren) of a member.  If none exists, then there is no payout; hence the legal challenge that the families of single soldiers are discriminated against on the basis of marital status.

Yes I understand all this. I've lived it.

Why the VAC decision? To save money?

 

[PuckChaser]

To save money?

I think that hits the nail on the head. Theres no other logical reason.

 

[OldSolduer]

I think that hits the nail on the head. Theres no other logical reason.

I would like to see the Minister and his ADM (head bureaucrat?) go on nationwide TV to defend this position.

Will that happen? Maybe when the Jets return to Winnipeg and hell freezes over.

 

[mariomike]

Topic: "The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread" (Read 10734 times)
Seven pages:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/41700/post-942501.html#msg942501

Topic: Family of Canadian soldier in Afghanistan not getting death benefit after all  (Read 3215 times)
Three pages:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/45347.0

 

[captloadie]

As much as I feel for the families, I don't see the policy as being discriminatory. It may not be a good policy, but that is a different story. The stated purpose is to help transition the soldier's immediate family from a military life to a civilian life, due to the loss of income, housing, support network etc. It is not meant to recognize their sacrifice through a financial payout. That being said, if a single soldier has elderly/infirm parents or siblings that he/she is legally responsible for, the money should be paid out in those instances. And hopefully the member made arrangements beforehand in case this happens (seeting up trusts etc.)

The CF has many programs and monies that discriminate exclude different members based on the situation. Members being medically released receive extra benefits to aid in moving to the civilian side, some of which would also benefit healthy members that are releasing. Officers with degrees are not entitled to educational funding because they already have a BA. We may not agree with the policies necessarily, but I don't think any of us are screaming discrimination.

 

[George Wallace]

As much as I feel for the families, I don't see the policy as being discriminatory. It may not be a good policy, but that is a different story. The stated purpose is to help transition the soldier's immediate family from a military life to a civilian life, due to the loss of income, housing, support network etc. It is not meant to recognize their sacrifice through a financial payout. That being said, if a single soldier has elderly/infirm parents or siblings that he/she is legally responsible for, the money should be paid out in those instances. And hopefully the member made arrangements beforehand in case this happens (seeting up trusts etc.)

The CF has many programs and monies that discriminate exclude different members based on the situation. Members being medically released receive extra benefits to aid in moving to the civilian side, some of which would also benefit healthy members that are releasing. Officers with degrees are not entitled to educational funding because they already have a BA. We may not agree with the policies necessarily, but I don't think any of us are screaming discrimination.

Agreed.  As for the comment on supporting elderly/infirm parents or siblings that he/she is legally responsible for, they would be considered "Dependants" and should in my opinion be covered.  As for a single member's healthy parents being eligible, this does not make sense.  What of the married member's healthy parents and In-Laws?  Would they not call discrimination if this were passed?  Where will the nonsense stop?  Do we move on to healthy living grandparents as well?

 

[Occam]

I think one of the problems is that VAC does such a good job of clouding the issue, such as bringing the SDB to the discussion when it has no place in it.

Another aspect that cannot be ignored are these two scenarios: 

If a single soldier is gravely injured, and an application is subsequently made on their behalf for the Disability Benefit, and they then die more than 30 days later, then the Disability Benefit would be issued to the estate at a rate of 100% disability.

If a single soldier is killed instantly, then no Death Benefit is issued, period.

A 100% Disability Benefit is exactly the same amount as the Death Benefit, but only one of these scenarios generates a benefit - dependent upon when the veteran dies.  Doesn't sound quite so equal.  I can see why there are arguments that the Death Benefit should be paid to the Estate, not to the survivor.

 

[The Bread Guy]

First, this ....

A discrimination case involving the family of single soldier killed five years ago in Afghanistan was thrown out when Veterans Affairs abruptly declared Cpl. Matthew Dinning had a previously unrecognized common-law spouse and child.

The revelation shocked his parents and brother, who were challenging the federal government's policy of paying a $250,000 lump-sum death benefit only to the families of married soldiers.

The case was dismissed by a human rights tribunal last Friday in a written decision, obtained by The Canadian Press.

Lincoln Dinning, Matthew's father, said he would never have filed the human rights complaint, which alleged the government discriminated against single soldiers, had there been a spouse in the picture at the outset.

The decision by Veterans Affairs to recognize Tanya Lowerison as an entitled spouse occurred in June, well after the conclusion of a public hearing into the discrimination case last spring.

Lawyers for the federal department subsequently argued that there was no basis for the complaint since Matthew Dinning was technically no longer a single soldier.

The tribunal agreed.

"I am disappointed by the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dismissing my case, but I am not at all surprised," said Lincoln Dinning, who was required to keep silent about last summer's decision until the commission had ruled ....

Canadian Press, 29 Nov 11

.... now, this:

The families of at least four unmarried soldiers killed in Afghanistan have stepped forward to file human-rights complaints.

The relatives allege Veterans Affairs discriminates in favour of married troops in the payment of a $250,000 death benefit, The Canadian Press has learned.

The cases, which are at the investigation stage, follow the dismissal last week of a similar complaint by the parents of Cpl. Matthew Dinning, who died in an April 2006 Kandahar roadside bombing.

A federal human-rights tribunal rejected the complaint of Lincoln and Laurie Dinning because Veterans Affairs abruptly decided to recognize their son's girlfriend as his common-law spouse, technically making him no longer single.

Errol Cushley, the father of Pte. William Cushley, and Beverley Skalrud, the mother of Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, confirmed they have launched their own challenges of the death stipend, which was instituted as part of an overhaul of veterans benefits in 2006.

The families of Trooper Jack Bouthillier and Trooper March Diab have launched similar complaints.

"You have four men killed in the same battle, three of them are paid $250,000, (but) William does not qualify because he is single. It doesn't make any sense to me," said Errol Cushley, who lives near Wallaceburg, Ont.

"I always understood you couldn't discriminate on those grounds." ....

Canadian Press, 30 Nov 11