Go to Header Menu | Go to Topics Menu | Graphical Version
![Statistics](/web/20061215090844im_/http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/images/titles/updates_e.jpg)
October 26, 2005
The Honourable William Graham, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of National Defence
National Defence Headquarters
Major-General George R. Pearkes Building
13th floor, North Tower
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K2
Dear Minister Graham:
I am writing with respect to the Special Report entitled Unfair Deductions From
SISIP Payments to Former CF Members. As you may recall, my predecessor provided
this report to former National Defence Minister John McCallum on August 27,
2003. On October 8, 2003, Minister McCallum wrote to the former Ombudsman,
commenting that the report was “thoughtful and timely” and advising that he
agreed with all of the recommendations it contained. The report was made public
on October 30, 2003. On November 4, 2003, the House of Commons Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) unanimously passed
a motion imploring “the Defence Minister and government to accept and enact the
recommendations forthwith.”
While three of the report’s recommendations have been implemented, two remain
outstanding. These concern the offsetting (deduction) of Veterans Affairs Canada
(VAC) disability pensions awarded under the Pension Act, awarded as compensation
for a disability resulting from military duty, from the amount paid out by SISIP
Long Term Disability (LTD) as monthly income replacement benefits.
It might be useful to describe some of the rules, terms and conditions relevant
to these recommendations.
The SISIP LTD plan guarantees CF members 75% of their previous salaries for up
to two years if they are released, in particular, because of a service-related
disability. Payments can continue to age 65 if the member remains disabled.
However, SISIP LTD does not necessarily pay the whole 75% itself; under the
plan, any other source of income a member receives is taken into account and
offset from the amount SISIP pays directly.
VAC disability pensions, even though they are not considered income but rather
disability benefits aimed at compensating CF members for injuries suffered in
the line of duty, are considered a source of income under the SISIP LTD formula.
Therefore, they are taken into consideration when SISIP LTD determines how much
it will pay out to disabled former CF members in income replacement benefits.
The Ombudsman’s report recommended that since VAC disability pensions are not
income, they should not be considered as income when calculating SISIP LTD
benefits. The report also recommended that individuals who had previously had
their SISIP LTD benefits reduced be reimbursed retroactive to October 27, 2000.
(This is the date on which all serving CF members became entitled to collect VAC
disability pensions while still serving, regardless of where their injury
occurred. Before that date, only those injured in a special duty area were
entitled to collect the tax-free disability benefit while still serving and
collecting a salary.)
Following my meeting with you on September 27, 2005, our General Counsel, Mary
McFadyen, met with your Special Assistant, Brian O’Neil on October 5, 2005,
taking the opportunity to explain why we think these recommendations should be
implemented, and pointing out the inherent unfairness in considering a pension
intended to compensate for a disability as a source of income deductible from
SISIP LTD payments.
It is important to emphasize that the new Veterans Charter may correct this
inequity, but this will happen only from the date of its coming into force
(possibly April 2006) onward; my understanding is that the Charter will not have
any retroactive effect. This means that former members not falling under the new
Charter (i.e., those currently in the system and any others entering the system
between now and the coming into force of the Charter) will continue to be
subject to the rules under examination here. In other words, those who are
collecting SISIP LTD payments and receiving VAC disability benefits under the
Pension Act will continue to have their SISIP LTD payments reduced by the VAC
disability benefits they receive.
To illustrate why I believe this is fundamentally unfair, I would like to use
the following hypothetical examples.
Let us examine the situation of two Master Corporals serving in the same Army
unit, both having eight years of service and both being injured in the same
incident (before the coming into force of the Charter).
MCpl A suffers injuries that leave him permanently disabled, but the
disability is not severe enough to prevent him from continuing to serve in the
Regular Force. Let us assume he was assessed at suffering from a 20% incapacity,
which results in a monthly VAC pension of approximately $400.00. This is a
pension which, normally, he would receive tax-free for the rest of his life.
Assume further that this member continues to serve for another twenty-five
years, and eventually retires as a Master Warrant Officer. On retirement, he
will be entitled to a full (superannuation) pension based, of course, on his
salary in his last five years of service at a higher rank than when he was
injured.
According to the regime now in place, this member will receive his VAC monthly
pension in addition to his Regular Force pay from the time of his injury to the
time of his retirement, and, when he retires, he will receive it in addition to
his superannuation pension. In other words, he will always receive his
(tax-free) VAC pension in addition to his other income.
Let’s now turn to MCpl B who was much less lucky. His injury was much more
serious. In fact, it was so serious that he was released from the CF as
medically unfit to serve. He applied for a VAC pension and was assessed at 70%
incapacity. This entitles him to a VAC pension of approximately $1400.00 per
month (assuming he was single and had no children). Let us examine his situation
in more detail:
- he lost his job;
- his physical impairment is so serious that the likelihood of his finding a
civilian job may be extremely limited;
- because he had only eight years of service, he is not entitled to
(superannuation) pension payments;
- under SISIP LTD his income will, upon release from the CF, be reduced to 75%
of his regular force salary; and
- he will not be able to collect his VAC pension in addition to his SISIP LTD
benefits; on the contrary, the value of that pension will be offset from his
SISIP payments.
The two examples I have just used – and I believe they are not farfetched –
demonstrate why, in my view, there is a fundamental element of unfairness in the
present system which leads to real and serious inequities. It is this very
unfairness that the two recommendations that have not been implemented are meant
to redress.
I believe that a strong case can be made that VAC pension payments should not be
considered as income replacement as such, but rather as compensation for the
consequences flowing from disabilities suffered (e.g., loss of enjoyment of
life, loss of career opportunities, continuing pain and suffering, etc.).
Incidentally, I presume that the changes made in 2000 to allow Regular Force
members to collect their regular pay and their VAC pensions were based on a
similar rationale, i.e., that the VAC disability payments are not income
replacement but rather that they are intended, as I just indicated, to act as
compensation for losses other than losses of income.
If this is correct, and if one assumes that the primary purpose of SISIP LTD is
to act as income replacement, then it seems to me that it would be logical –
indeed, imperative – that a change should be made to prevent VAC pension
payments from being offset from SISIP LTD benefits. Otherwise, the system will
only be seen as condoning treatment that is significantly unfair and inequitable
to those who, like MCpl B, are most disabled and who suffer most.
Because the situations that soldiers like MCpl B find themselves in result
directly from their millitary service, from their service to their country, I
believe they deserve better. They ought to be treated with care, compassion and
generosity. They ought to be treated in a manner that is substantially similar
to that of soldiers who are able to continue serving their country, in spite of
the injuries they have suffered.
Given that this point was raised when we met, I would also add that, during the
Office’s investigation of this matter, SISIP President, Pierre Lemay, advised us
that removing Pension Act disability payments from the formula for determining
SISIP LTD payments would cost approximately $5 million per year. We have not
independently verified this. I will only say that if Mr Lemay is right, it does
not appear that the money required to correct this serious inequity is
disproportionate.
I understand that you have received advice from the Department on this matter,
and will soon be making a decision. As you know, the role of an Ombudsman does
not end after making recommendations. It continues afterwards to ensure that, to
the extent possible, those recommendations are acted upon by the organization.
As the recommendations in this Report have been accepted by your predecessor,
the Honourable John McCallum, and also endorsed by the Honourable David Pratt,
when he was Chairman of SCONDVA, I would urge you to consider giving effect to
them.
As you know, there is considerable interest in this matter. The Royal Canadian
Legion strongly supports these recommendations and we receive constant inquiries
from serving and former CF members, as well as from members of Parliament and
the public, as to whether or not the recommendations will be implemented.
I believe strongly that this inequity should be corrected. I feel a
responsibility to update my constituents on this matter, and given the passage
of time, I consider it imperative that I do so at the earliest opportunity. I
would therefore suggest this matter be addressed on a priority basis.
I thank you for your thoughtful consideration of these recommendations and I
look forward to what I hope will be a positive response from you.
Yours truly,
Yves Côté, Q.C.
Ombudsman
Header MenuFrançais | Contact Us | Help | Search | Canada Site Home | Organization | Comments | Graphical Version | Defence Site Topics MenuMandate The Ombudsman FAQs Case Scenarios Submitting a Complaint Commendations Reports Media Room Updates Statistics Site Map
|