By Brian Forbes, Chair of the National Council of Veteran Associations and Chair of
The War Amps Executive Committee
The National Council of Veteran Associations in Canada (NCVA) continues to take the long-held position that SISIP LTD/VOC‑REHAB should be eliminated, placing all SISIP LTD and VOC‑REHAB under Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) for all service attributable and non‑service attributable medical releases with no premiums. In effect, a one program/one service delivery model.
One of the priority recommendations of NCVA, the Ministerial Policy Advisory Group (MPAG), the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Office of the Veterans Ombud (OVO) for many years has been to suggest that the insurance culture needs to be removed from the compensation made available to veterans and their families. The compensation of veterans and their dependants should not be a function of the insurance industry whose mandate, in many situations, is to minimize exposure of the insurer’s policy when applied to injured or disabled individuals.
As a matter of background, a fundamental commitment made by the Government at the time of the enactment of the New Veterans Charter (NVC) was the recognition that the SISIP LTD program should be eliminated and fully replaced by a liberalized income replacement loss benefit administered by VAC. This government commitment made by the minister and deputy minister of the day was part and parcel of the understanding between the veteran stakeholder community and VAC in consideration of the immediate passage of the NVC by Parliament in 2006. The constraints placed on the Veterans Well-being Act (VWA) by the restrictive provisions of the SISIP LTD program and the SISIP VOC‑REHAB program are felt in the present context and should be removed as soon as possible.
It is to be noted that the “wellness program” strongly advocated by VAC is clearly impacted by the fact that the greater majority of medically released Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members are compelled to utilize the SISIP VOC‑REHAB program as a first responder. In effect, VAC does not have the capacity to control and operate this portion of the VOC‑REHAB program and is left with little accountability as to the impact that the SISIP program will have on veterans in regard to this essential element of the VWA.
As a matter of legislative history, it is to be noted that VAC converted the former Career Impact Allowance and the Career Impact Allowance Supplement into the Additional Pain and Suffering Compensation benefit as part of the Pension for Life transition enactment. It has been the position of NCVA for many years, in concert with the MPAG, that the department should revisit this legislative model for career impact funding and address the future loss of income suffered by a disabled veteran on the basis of the following fundamental question – “What would the disabled veteran have earned in their projected military career if the veteran had not been injured?” – as opposed to the nominal one per cent increase in the Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) provided in the current legislation, which decreases in financial impact with the higher number of years of military service experienced by the disabled veteran.
A number of members of NCVA have strongly indicated a serious concern that the current IRB leaves lower-ranked CAF members at a minimal level of income replacement for life in circumstances where they are deemed to be permanently incapacitated and where such a veteran qualifies for the VAC Diminished Earnings Capacity program or the SISIP LTD benefit.
It has been our position from the outset that the financial benchmarks for a progressive income model can be established in accord with the various reports emanating from the OVO over recent years and as proposed by the NVC Advisory Group. These evaluations have demonstrated the relative predictability of the elevation of a CAF member through their military career in recognizing the specific ranks the member would have achieved had the member not been injured.
It is also of considerable importance that the Canadian civil courts, over the last number of decades, have evaluated the cases of severely injured plaintiffs by consistently applying the concept of future loss of income in assessing monetary damages. In a similar fashion to the proposals emanating from NCVA and the MPAG on the progressive income replacement model, the courts consider the probable career earnings of an injured plaintiff from the perspective of future loss of income or, alternatively, future loss of earnings capacity as part and parcel of the damage award granted to plaintiffs in the Canadian judicial system.
It is of interest that, in the context of VAC, the department has a distinct advantage over the courts, as the judicial system only has “one bite at the apple” at the time of the court hearing or settlement. VAC, on the other hand, is able to monitor the income position of a disabled veteran throughout their life to determine the differential between the benchmark established by this newly structured benefit for career impact funding and the actual income received by the veteran. Query: Why should an injured Canadian veteran receive less than an injured plaintiff with reference to “future loss of income”? We have, in effect, paralleled the Disability Award under the VWA with the general pain and suffering damage awards in the Canadian courts – why not replicate the philosophy of the future loss of income concept as well?
