DECONSTRUCTING SOCIAL POLICY:

THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER

By

MATTHEW LULOFF

Under the supervision of

DR. ALLAN MOSCOVITCH

A research essay submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for PAPM4908 as

credit towards the degree of Bachelor of Public Affairs and Policy Management

[Honours]

Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs

Carleton University

Ottawa, Ontario

May 2013

1

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Allan Moscovitch for his guidance, patience and candid remarks

through every phase of writing this paper. As this work is near and dear to my heart, Allan was integral in maintaining my focus.

Thank you to my lovely fiancée and best friend, Laura Mullen, for her enduring patience, love

and support.

Thank you to MPs Sean Casey and Hon. John McKay for allowing me to work in your offices and to see the policy evaluation process first-hand. You both work hard for soldiers, veterans

and their families and I have truly enjoyed my time with both of you.

Thank you to MP Peter Stoffer for your encouragement and work on behalf of those who have served.

Thank you to all of the veterans advocates that made this work worth every minute and for

all of your encouragement and willingness to help at every turn.

Thank you to Elaine Rouleau at Arthur Kroeger College. I’m not sure how I have managed to write so many words but cannot find the proper ones to express how much I appreciate you

and your hard work.

I dedicate this work to the men and women of 2PPCLI I served with in Afghanistan; be it in

Recce Platoon, Bravo Company, Charlie Company or otherwise, you will find no greater friends and no worse enemies. Scott Shipway, Andrew Grenon, Josh Roberts and the rest of my

fallen comrades, I hope I am making you proud.

2

Table of Contents Chapter I Introduction … 3 Chapter II Theoretical Framework … 11 The Political Economy of Neoliberalism … 12 Neoliberalism and Veteran’s Policies …14 The Social Construction of Neoliberalism … 17 Chapter III Provisions Under the Pension Act … 24 Provisions Under the New Veterans Charter … 25

Substantial cuts made to the vital services severely injured veterans … 27 Stakeholder reaction … 28 The NVC: An expedient return to work … 33 Chapter IV The New Veterans Charter as a Neoliberal Policy … 44 The Political Economy of the New Veterans Charter … 45 The Social Construction of Veterans … 47

The Social Construction of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter: Better than bad is still worse than good … 48

Chapter V Conclusion … 52 References … 58

3

Chapter I

Introduction

Canada has a long and storied history with a reputation for punching above our

collective weight in the international community. From Banting’s discovery of insulin as a

treatment for diabetes to Lester B. Pearson’s brilliant peace brokering in his handling of

the Suez Crisis, Canada asserts her relevance by demonstrating an ability to innovate,

adapt and overcome despite the bleakest of odds. This is especially true of our military

history.

Two hundred years ago, fifty-five years before Confederation, a rag-tag militia of

British and French colonists assisted by Indigenous and Metis warriors fought off a

coordinated and significantly larger American invading force maintaining the Canadian-

American border. One hundred and thirty nine years later, at the Battle of Kapyong in

Korea, Canada demonstrated unrelenting resolve while holding off a Chinese and Korean

brigade for three days; an amazing feat considering the Canadian contingent was

demonstrably smaller and suffered seemingly endless casualties. To this day, the Canadian

Forces are highly regarded as amongst the best-trained and effective organizations in the

world. However, when the mission is over and the soldier returns to civilian life, a new

mission lays before the returning soldier, that of re-integrating into the society he or she

fought to serve while making sense of their experiences in order to wield them to their

advantage in the often difficult task of establishing an existence beyond the total institution

of military service. The recently restored civilian, “for whom everything (was) provided by

4

the state, (has lost), to a certain extent, his sense of personal responsibility” (McKelvey

Bell, 1919). If it is the Government who is responsible for this transformation from civilian

to soldier, should it not then be responsible for the transition in reverse? Most would

agree, however the chasm between what the government is mandated to provide and what

provisions are available to veterans is long, and wide, and growing longer and wider still.

Despite the contemporary and extensive media coverage regarding benefits

available to veterans of the Canadian Forces, caring for our injured veterans through

disability pensions coupled with vocational training is certainly not a pioneering or novel

idea. During the First World War, the Tory-led Unionist government of Sir Robert Borden

passed the War Measures Act creating the Department of Soldier’s Civil Re-establishment.

Borden’s government proclaimed it as and indication of Canada’s strong commitment to

those who had sacrificed life and limb for the Commonwealth:

"The men by whose sacrifice and endurance the free institutions of Canada will be preserved must be re-educated where necessary and re-established on the land or in such pursuits or vocations as they may desire to follow. The maimed and the broken will be protected, the widow and the orphan will be helped and cherished. Duty and decency demand that those who are saving democracy shall not find democracy a house of privilege, or a school of poverty and hardship" (Veterans Affairs Canada - Canadian Forces Advisory Council, 2004)

The newly minted Department developed and delivered comprehensive programmes

designed to support the injured financially, foster professional and personal development

through education and vocational rehabilitation, with the end goal of returning them to

some semblance of self-sufficiency. The programmes were, by most measures, heralded as

a complete success. At the time, the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported:

“as soon as the returned soldier who is crippled or rendered partially disabled by disease or injury can be made to realize that life still holds

5

interests for him in the manufacturing, the educational, or the commercial world, and that there is a department which is ready to do everything necessary to help him overcome his handicap, so soon will a step forward have been made in connection with his rehabilitation and his return to useful civilian life. The knowledge that he can still be self-supporting in spite of the handicap of the loss of limbs or of other serious defects, assists him to regain pride in his own personal effort and encourages him to make a strong endeavour to become self-supporting” (McKelvey Bell, 1919)

Certainly many things have changed since 1919, and the Government of Canada’s

unfettered commitment to the injured soldier as demonstrated above is, quite regrettably,

one of them.

Canada’s decision to support the NATO International Security Assistance Force

mission to Afghanistan was an undertaking the likes of which the Canadian Forces had not

seen since the Korean War, both in the size and scope of the operation, and in the amount

of casualties incurred in combat. From the time the first Canadian boots hit the hot sands of

Kandahar to the declaration of the end of combat operations, 158 flag-draped coffins have

returned to Canada to be received by grieving families. The impact on those who fought

selflessly and tirelessly alongside international allies and survived the horrors of war is

without a doubt immeasurable.

In addition, many Canadian forces members returned home with injuries including

some who returned home with gruesome physical injuries, and others who returned

haunted by the intensity and vicious violence of the conflict; both types of injuries afflicted

some soldiers. The brave men and women who stood face-to-face with the Taliban and

other armed factions across southern Kandahar were prepared to give everything , up to

and including their lives, for their country. On their return, their country has an obligation

to them as mandated by the contemporary incarnation of veteran’s legislation, the

6

Department of Veteran’s Affairs Act, which charges the Minister with “the care, treatment or

re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces” (The

Governnment of Canada, 1984).

With an average of two thousand eight hundred troops deployed at any given time,

Canada’s mission in Afghanistan was producing a constant flow of new clients for the

Department. In 2005, while Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, Stephen Harper

proclaimed to an audience of Legionnaires,

“all too often we hear stories of veterans who are ignored or disrespected by government. What a shameful way to treat men and women who risked their lives to defend Canada. This shame will end with the election of a new (Conservative) government” (CTV News, 2005)

But the shame did not end when Mr Harper became Prime Minister in February 2006. The

first Tory government in over a decade, seemingly delivering on its promise with fervour

and without delay, produced the New Veteran’s Charter (NVC) exactly two months after

forming government, created an office for a veteran’s ombudsman, and introduced major

changes to the financial assistance available to injured clients of the department. At the

time, Harper hailed the legislation as a sign his government was “begin (ning) to do the

right thing for Canada’s servicemen and women” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2006). The

Minister of Veterans Affairs, The Honourable Greg Thompson proclaimed,

“The New Veterans Charter is the most profound transformation of Veterans' services and benefits since the end of the Second World War. It provides all the fundamental programs and services that CF Veterans and their families have told us they need as they transition from military to civilian life” (Ibid).

Even the officially non-partisan chief of the Canadian Forces, General Rick Hillier touted

the NVC as “Canada’s promise to invest in (veterans) futures” (Ibid). However it was the

7

Minister of Veterans Affairs who was closest to the results in declaring the piece of

legislation a transformation.

The government was presenting the NVC as an improvement to the antiquated

Pension Act, however, the major changes represented a significant decrease in the amount

of financial assistance available to injured veterans at a time when hundreds of soldiers

were returning home afflicted with either or both physical injuries and Occupational Stress

Injuries (OSI) (Aiken & Buithenhuis, 2011). In response, Michael Blais, CD, founded the

Canadian Veterans Advocacy and organized an Annual Canadian Veterans National Day of

Protest, attracting thousands of angry veterans to federal riding offices and to Parliament

Hill in 2010 (Canadian Veterans Advocacy, 2012). The chief complaint regarding the new

legislation was the decision to remove the Life-time Disability Pension mandated by the

now-defunct Pension Act and replace it with a Lump Sum Disability Award. The common

argument advocating for this change is that lump sum awards provide substantial and

immediate support to the veteran. The trouble is the lump sum payment does not provide

the guaranteed income security needed for veterans to re-establish themselves without

financial strain. If the veteran is well-versed in investment banking and has access to the

best advice possible, perhaps this option would be viable, however this scenario is highly

unlikely considering the social circumstances of the modern veteran.

In response, the government introduced the Enhanced New Veteran’s Charter Act,

addressing some of the issues raised by concerned veterans and modifying the Lump Sum

Disability Award. Rather than reverting to monthly pensions as demanded by Canadian

Veterans Advocacy and many individual veterans, the government opted to change

payment options for the Award to include a monthly instalment option, with the reasoning

8

that veterans had difficulty managing a large sum of money (Veterans Affairs Canada,

2010). Still, the total amount awarded to the recipient would mirror the amount of the

lump sum, giving very little incentive to prolong the pay out. In fact, the Government of

Canada was scaling back the fiscal benefits to injured veterans, describing the changes as

‘enhancements’ and ‘improvements,’ purporting to be addressing the concerns regarding

the NVC while only making token changes to the Act in order to give the impression of

understanding and to placate the affected veterans. Additional cuts to the Veteran’s Affairs

budget were announced in the 2012 Federal Budget while the government maintains its

unbridled “support” for those who fought for Canada. While these changes are presented

by the government as a means to speed up the process by making large cuts to the

“rampant bureaucracy” within the Department of Veterans Affairs, indeed having less

direct support for veterans by closing District Offices and slashing staff would tend to

provoke the opposite result (The Canadian Press , 2012). Yvan Thauvette, president of the

Union for Veterans Affairs Employees has countered "People are overwhelmed in a lot of

district offices. Service delivery, they want to cut positions and most of those positions are

frontline staff people. Do you believe that the service will be the same? No it won't" (CBC

News , 2012). The EQUITAS Society, a Veterans Advocacy group currently engaged in a

class-action lawsuit against the government in response to the Enhanced New Veterans

Charter has identified the services currently available to veterans as “woefully inadequate”

(Equitas Society, 2012). Can cutting resources and funding while lowering the financial

support to Canadian Forces veterans truly be an enhancement to the services available to

them? How can recent changes represent both a reduction and an improvement to these

services?

9

In May 2012, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs released its latest report,

piously titled Improving Services to Improve Quality of Life for Veterans and Their Families.

The Report contains seventeen (17) recommendations, most of which contain weak

language including “assess the potential benefits… examine… maintaining current

practices… review… continue to work,” and so on (Standing Committee on Veterans

Affairs, 41st Parliament, 2012). In the Supplementary Opinion of the Official Opposition,

New Democratic Party of Canada members of the committee expressed “very serious

concerns with its content” (Ibid, p. 71). Not surprisingly, the NDP, in chorus with the Union

for Veterans Affairs Employees, stated,

“New Democrats are very concerned that the cuts to staff (approximately 804 VAC staff), the elimination of nine regional offices across the country, and proposals for private sector/alternate service… will seriously impact the quality of service to veterans and their families. The Official Opposition does not believe that the Department of Veterans Affairs can maintain the same standard of care or programs and services with fewer staff and resources” (Ibid)

In its Minority Report, the Liberal Party of Canada was scathing in its criticism of the

process of the committee and the content of its Report. The Party’s only sitting member of

the Committee, Sean Casey (MP Charlottown) pointed out that many of the

recommendations lacked substantial or sufficient action, opting only for “further study”

(Ibid, p. 75). Casey states,

“The Liberal Party is disappointed with the calibre and generality of this Report. Such an extensive study provided an opportunity for the Committee to make impactful recommendations to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The recommendations however, as well as the report in general, display that the majority of the Committee is far more interested in congratulating the government, than in providing advice and constructive criticism to improve services to the veterans of Canada” (Ibid)

10

With such vehement criticism from stakeholders, employee representatives and committee

members, how does the government continue to mask deep cuts as improvements?

Research in this policy area is incredibly important. Reducing Veterans benefits is

shirking Canada’s responsibility to care for those who signed a contract of unlimited

liability and have incurred injuries while conducting combat operations in defence of the

Crown. At a time when the Government of Canada has demanded so much of its Canadian

Forces with the decade-long war in Afghanistan, humanitarian efforts in Haiti, increased

military presence in the Arctic, security efforts for the Olympic Games, response to

domestic emergencies including flooding in Manitoba, peacekeeping operations in the

Middle East, Africa and Asia, it is not fulfilling its responsibilities as outlined in the

Department of Veterans Affairs Act.

11

Chapter II Theoretical Framework

The Pension Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/) and the New

Veterans Charter (http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/information-canadian-forces/services-

benefits) are social policies as they directly pertain to the welfare of a microcosm of

Canadian society, namely former members of the Canadian Forces. The transition between

the two policies has garnered considerable backlash from stakeholder groups including the

Canadian Veterans Advocacy (http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/) and EQUITAS

(http://equitassociety.ca/), both representing memberships of affected veterans. This

opposition is indicative that this transition has incited a social problem. Social problems

consist of "the activities of groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect

to some putative conditions” (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977, p. 415). Contemporary veterans

policy is based on claims making, just as protesting veterans are themselves in an act of

making claims, which include

“demanding services, filling out forms, lodging complaint, filing lawsuits, calling press conferences, writing letters of protest, passing resolutions, publishing exposes, placing ads in newspapers, supporting or opposing some governmental practice or policy…” (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977, p. 79)

As a bureaucratic institution, the Department of Veterans Affairs keeps records,

administers programs and services and engages with clients using forms, which are

completed by department staff and those demanding services. If a client of Veterans Affairs

has concerns, he may seek redress in a variety of forms, most if not all of which are

mentioned by Spector & Kitsuse above. As this case pertains to a social policy that has

provoked a social problem, approaching policy analysis from a social perspective is crucial

12

to understanding both the implications of this policy, but also to understanding how this

policy is presented as beneficial to society. Analysis using Political Economy and Social

Constructionism theory achieves both of these objectives.

The Political Economy of Neoliberalism

Political Economy recognizes that “actual policies are often quite different than

optimal policies, the latter defined as subject to technical and informational, but not

political constraints” (Drazen, 2000, p. 7). In this sense, political constraints refer to limits

incited by conflict of interest and the solutions available within these limits (Ibid).

Broadly, Political Economy is the study of how the allocation of scarce resources, guided b y

politics and power, informed by ideology, affects the range of choices available, which

subsequently affect society. As conflict is inherent in Political Economy, the works of Marx

have invariably influenced the paradigm.

Marxist political economy is underpinned by the assertion that “an economy driven

by production for profit is systemically irrational” (McNally, 2011). Marx explains that

through over-investment, capitalists undermine any possible profitability within the

economy (Ibid). In the incessant and arbitrary ambition for profits, capitalists tend to

produce far more than is demanded by the market leading to price wars while

undercutting competition, which in turn cuts into or completely destroys the possibility for

profitmaking, the supposed raison d’etre for the capitalist marketplace (Ibid). As the

easiest way to produce profits is to exploit labourers, capitalists rely on large pools of

surplus labour (the unemployed or underemployed) that must sell their labour at a

reduced rate in desperation for a subsistence wage (Ibid). As labourers do not own the

13

means of production, they are forced to sell their labour on the very same market in which

capitalist society acquires virtually all goods and services required to survive. As goods and

services are sold on the capitalist market in order to garner maximum profits, so too are

labourers exploited in order to maximise profits. Therefore, if you cannot participate in the

market by finding someone to buy your labour, you risk being unable to purchase the

goods necessary for survival (Ibid).

In the contemporary period, the predominant political, economic and ideological

framework is neoliberalism. Its policies are not only championed in the countries of the

West, but are encouraged and exported by international organizations and treaties

including the World Trade Organization, The Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development, The International Monetary Fund, The European Union, The North American

Free Trade Agreement and The Trans-Pacific Partnership. As the dominant ideological

paradigm, neoliberalism has become hegemonic in its perceived incontrovertibility. David

Harvey contends that

“neoliberalism is above all a project to restore class dominance to sectors that saw their fortunes threatened by the ascent of social democratic endeavours in the aftermath of the Second World War. Although neoliberalism has had limited effectiveness as an engine for economic growth, it has succeeded in channelling wealth from subordinate classes to dominant ones and from poorer to richer countries. This process has entailed the dismantling of institutions and narratives that promoted more egalitarian distributive measures in the preceding era” (Harvey, 2007)

Neoliberalism is underpinned by the theory that overall well-being is improved by the

state limiting itself to providing strong institutional structures and protective services

(police, armed forces) in order to preserve property rights, the integrity of money,

individual freedoms, free markets and free trade (Ibid). Unregulated Free trade opens

14

labour markets to the world, lowering high wages in developed countries and exploiting

cheap labour in developing countries (Bhagwati, 1994). Neoliberalism concerns itself it

creating a market in every area, including areas traditionally excluded from market activity

and,

“if markets do not exist (in areas such as education, health care, social security, or environmental pollution), then they must be created, by state action if necessary. But beyond these tasks the state should not venture. State interventions in markets (once created) must be kept to a bare minimum because the state cannot possibly possess enough information to second-guess market signals (prices) and because powerful interests will inevitably distort and bias state interventions (particularly in democracies) for their own benefit” (Harvey, 2007)

Neoliberalism has also been defined as “a more virulent form of capitalism (…) with a

growth pattern based on soaring inequality, rising global poverty, and increased human

insecurity” (McNally, 2011). Elaborating upon this broader definition, and for the purposes

of this paper, neoliberal policies have been defined as “clamping down on the growth of

inflation and the growth of social entitlements; loading negative effects (…) onto

vulnerable groups” (Connell, 2010).

Neoliberalism and Veteran’s Policies

Canadian Forces airmen and airwomen, soldiers and sailors swear an oath of

service upon initiation and in doing so sign a contract of unlimited liability. The concept of

unlimited liability refers to how “the professional soldier- and by definition sailor and

airperson- is unlimited in his or her military responsibilities and, if necessary, must offer

up his or her life in the achievement of the mission goal” (Bercuson, 2004). The

Government of Canada, by engaging in the war in Afghanistan, invoked this pillar of service

and, as would be expected in a violent counter-insurgency, casualties of all types were

15

taken. The act of signing such a contract, giving up basic rights and entering into combat

creates an entire vulnerable class of servicemen and women. Upon returning home,

soldiers afflicted with horrific physical and/or psychological injuries become substantially

vulnerable, more so when their injuries prevent them from preforming their regular

duties. Prolonged injury leads to release from the Forces, all the while inhibiting the sale of

their labour and preventing them from participating in the economy.

Reductions in Veteran’s social benefits from this point of view are about loosening

the social safety net once available to veterans and replacing it with an incentive-based

approach to healing. What this means will be made clearer in the next chapter, but the key

point is that one purpose of the New Veterans Charter is replace state liability for the

consequences of state action, with cash payments, the purpose of which is to terminate

state liability. Arguably, the market approach has benefitted society as a whole. However,

private health care is another matter. Many authors have made the point that market based

health care makes the enjoyment of good health a consumer commodity often inaccessible

to many members of society. For this reason, it appears that Canadians are resistant to the

reprivatisation of health care, even naming Tommy Douglas, the founder of public health

care, as the greatest Canadian. A recent US example may serve to illuminate the approach

of the Veterans Charter.

Recently, the Los Angeles Times ran a story illustrating the troubles of Joyce, a 60 -

year-old diabetic who works for a church and does charity work in Africa (Stone D. J.,

2012). Understandably, the church does not offer health insurance. As the free-market

approach deals with incentives it is important to note that “insurers know that diabetics

like Joyce are much more likely to become ill and generate expensive bills, and the free

16

market incentivizes them to identify high-risk individuals and exclude them” (Ibid). When

the predominant ideology encourages the exclusion of groups most disadvantaged in

society, this approach can only been seen as a further disenfranchisement of these groups.

It is also counter-intuitive to incentivize healing, a process which takes a natural and often

slow course. At the same time, the purpose of the change is to reduce costs, which is

consistent with the approach of neoliberalism. Ironically, what the government would not

want to try with Medicare they are undertaking with the care of veterans.

By removing the term “benefit” and replacing it with “award,” the new Veterans

Charter ensures that injured veterans are no longer considered entitled to appropriate

medical care and support payments in case of physical or mental injury. Instead they are to

receive “awards” contingent on the goodwill of the department. Moreover, veter ans are

placed in a position where they may be expected to recover and resume economic activity

before the Lump-sum Disability Award funds have depleted. That is, veterans unable to

secure an income quickly and who have not been provided with income replacement will

live on the Disability Award until they find gainful employment, or until the Disability

Award has run out.

Whereas the traditional financial support provided to injured veterans in the

Pension Act as described in Chapter 1 provided predictable, lifelong financial support as

well as vocational retraining, the lump sum places responsibility for recovery in the ha nds

of the individual, essentially making it possible for the government to abdicate from any

obligation as an active partner in the treatment, rehabilitation and support of those who

have served their country. This severely limits both the time and resources available to the

injured veteran, further burdening an already vulnerable member of society, and by

17

extension, the members of his or her family who will be obligated to provide the care and

support which the government is no longer going to provide. These limitations create a

hostile environment in which to recover and is neither conducive to the recovery which

the program claims to promote nor the wellbeing of the veteran it purports to serve. Just as

neoliberalism encourages more productivity with fewer resources, the NVC imposes

unrealistic goals and truncated timeframes while providing substantially less financial

support. The very principles upon which the Pension Act was based, enduring financial

support coupled with vocational retaining with the goal of a meaningful return to self-

sufficiency, are undermined or completely discarded with the passing of the New Veterans

Charter into law.

The Social Construction of Neoliberalism

The Social Constructionist model deals with how political ideas and opinions are

‘constructed’ using the connotation of language and framing the discussion surrounding,

and the individual positions within, a policy (Stone D. , Policy Paradox, 1997). The Social

Constructionist model pays particular attention to how policy ideas are perceived by the

public. It explains that the strength of support for such policies depends on how political

actors use language and connotation to evoke desired responses and the framing of issues

to change public perception. The use of language is important to consider as it has serious

implications for how the public reacts to proposed policies.

Many linguistic tactics can be employed in the social construction of a policy area,

the most common being framing and branding. Branding in the policy sense is the strategic

use of language to define a topic, policy, situation, or actor in the public mind (Cosgrove,

18

2007). Branding relies heavily on influencing perception and manipulating public opinion.

Effective campaigns can have lasting and decidedly substantial results. Framing is

essentially narrowing the terms of debate or analysis of a particular policy. By focusing on

a small, particular piece of a causal chain, political actors can determine what the ‘cause’ of

a situation is and subsequently offer a list of alternative policies to remedy the problem

(Stone D. , 1997). Framing simplifies issues, and focuses the public on the chosen issue,

solution, and outcome. This undermines the rational decision-making process (Ibid). From

this point of view, the New Veteran’s Charter (NVC) is socially constructed as a modernised

solution to the complex needs of the newest generation of combat veterans. It is purported

to be an “enhancement” when it is, in fact, a reduction. By coining the NVC as a “living

document,” we are encouraged to overlook its many shortcomings with the qualification

that it can be modified at a later date. By replacing “benefits” with “awards,” the

government is facilitating a fundamental shift in the way we approach veterans benefits;

these benefits are no longer entitlements, they are hand-outs given to those deemed

deserving. By using the word award, the government suggests that the veteran is being

honoured.

Social construction is not limited to policy, but extends to the target groups

themselves. Schneider and Ingram, well regarded as the “foremost theorists of target

groups” contend “the social construction of target populations has a powerful influence on

public officials and shapes both the policy agenda and the actual policy design” (Stone D. ,

2005, p. ix; Schneider & Ingram, 1993, p. 334). The social construction of target

populations as described by Schneider and Ingram

“refers to (1) the recognition of the shared characteristics that distinguish a target population as socially meaningful and (2) the attribution of

19

specific, valence-oriented values, symbols, and images to the characteristics. Social constructions are stereotypes about particular groups of people that have been created by politics, culture, socialization, history, the media, literature, religion and the like” (Schneider & Ingram, 1993)

These stereotypes have been categorized by Schneider and Ingram and illustrated by a

bivariate table which groups populations by level of power: weak or strong, and by types of

constructions: positive or negative (Ibid). For example, groups considered having strong

power and positive construction, labelled “advantaged,” include the elderly, business,

scientists and veterans (Ibid). Populations with weak power and positive construction,

labelled “dependents,” include children, mothers and the disabled (Ibid). Populations with

strong power but negative construction, labelled “contenders,” include the rich, big unions,

minorities (in certain circles), cultural elites and the moral majority (Ibid). Finally,

populations with weak power and negative construction, labelled “deviants,” include

criminals, drug addicts, communists, the unpatriotic and gangs (Ibid).

20

(Schneider & Ingram, 1993)

Public officials implicitly use this framework to construct certain groups as

“deserving” which has two effects on policies targeted to benefit these groups. First, the

targeted group will respond favourably to the policy and second, other groups will respond

positively to the policy as it is benefitting these “deserving” people (Ibid, p. 336). Despite

the appearance of conclusiveness and endurance within these categories, Schneider and

Ingram allow “dramatic events will often serve as catalysts for changes in social

constructions” (Ibid, p. 343). This is precisely what has happened in the case of veterans.

Military servicemen and women have been disproportionately drawn from the middle and

lower classes in recent years (Lutz, 2008). It is little wonder that injured veterans have

become categorized and treated as “dependents” within this framework and the shift from

strong to weak power might be attributed to the shift in military demographics. When

21

examining the qualities of dependent groups, parallels between the framework and the

administration of the New Veterans Charter emerge. Policy tools for dependent groups as

described by Schneider and Ingram illustrate this:

“Subsidies will be given, but eligibility requirements often involve labelling (sic) and stigmatizing recipients. (…) Outreach programs will be less common, and many programs will require clients to present themselves to the agency in order to receive benefits. Welfare programs even for persons perceived as deserving, such as college students, the disabled, or the unemployed, usually do not seek out eligible persons but rely on those who are eligible to make their case to the agency itself. Symbolic and hortatory tools will commonly be used for dependent groups even when the pervasiveness of the problem would suggest that more direct intervention is needed. Groups in the dependent category will not usually be encouraged or given support to devise their own solutions to problems but will have to rely on agencies to help them” (Schneider & Ingram, 1993)

The stigmas that exist both within and outside the military regarding injuries, most notably

the diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, as well as the process for receiving

benefits under the New Veterans Charter are well documented and will be discussed at

length in the next chapters. The passive approach to program implementation described

above has become the hallmark of the New Veterans Charter and has drawn significant

criticism from media, stakeholder groups and veterans themselves. By employing the

techniques of social construction of target groups, the justification for the policy tools

engaged by the New Veterans Charter can be highlighted and used to illustrate why the

approach to veterans pensions has changed since the Pension Act was enacted. Through

employing this approach, this paper will emphasize how the veteran has been recast from

“advantaged” to “dependent”, a change that has been mirrored in policy.

In synthesising these two frameworks, the all-important questions ‘how’ and ‘why’

can be answered regarding the thesis statement. The Social Constructionist model reveals

22

how policies and target groups are framed and branded to receive public support and the

Political Economy model reveals whom truly benefits, which are truly liable, and thus why

a certain policy was used to deal with a problem, either real or contrived. In this particular

case, it will be argued, that although veterans were completely entitled by convention to

the benefits received under the Pension Act, receiving a wage without labour undermines

the neoliberal and capitalist agenda as no labour is being performed and there is no

incentive to return to employment and become self-supporting. . Provisions under the NVC

are in place to incentivise short recovery times and a return to market activity with

complete disregard for the actual mental or physical wellbeing of the veteran. Additionally,

the government and society have recast veterans as “dependents,” and the social

constructionist model informs how direct government intervention, however pervasive a

case may be made, is discouraged in favour of a passive, individualistic approach. This

synthesis of frameworks, coupled with the concept of neoliberalism provides for a

congruent and comprehensive analysis of this policy shift.

It is my contention in this thesis that

1) The New Veterans Charter is an archetypal neoliberal policy representing a

significant reduction in fiscal benefits allotted to injured veterans of the Canadian Forces.

The Conservative government has made the claim the Charter is enhancing and improving

services available.

2) In presenting the NVC, the government has employed techniques to shift injured

veterans from their position as “deserving” to dependent and therefore to reduce the

benefits available to them to provide an incentive to return to employment and terminate

government liability

23

3) Not only has the government severely reduced the fiscal benefits received by

clients of the Department of Veterans Affairs but it is also my contention that the benefits

currently available are insufficient to provide support and assistance to veterans who are

affected by their participation in the war.

4) Lastly, it is my contention that the Government of Canada, in providing

insufficient veterans benefits, is in breach of the contract it signs on behalf of the Crown

with each and every soldier entering the Forces and into armed combat.

24

Chapter III

Provisions under the Pension Act

The Pension Act was enacted in 1919 in order to care for ill and injured soldiers returning

from World War I, their families and the families of the deceased. (Government of Canada,

2004). The Pension Act begins with a preamble explaining,

“the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled” (Government of Canada, 2003)

This language recognises the obligation of the Government of Canada, on behalf of all

Canadians, to provide for those who have sacrificed on their behalf and in making

decisions regarding compensation, to interpret the provisions liberally in the spirit of the

preamble. The Pension Act provided for a monthly, life-long, non-taxable Disability

Pension to be paid to every applicant that has sustained an injury serving during a war or

in a special duty area. In recognition of the financial burden of dependents, veterans

provided for under the Pension Act received an additional proportion of the Disability

Pension for a spouse or common-law partner and for each child the veteran cares for.

Similar provisions were in place for spouses and children of soldiers killed while serving

during a war or special duty area including contingencies for unforeseen circumstances.

On top of the base pension paid to disabled veterans, the Pension Act contained

additional provisions including the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance and Attendance

Allowance. The Exceptional Incapacity Allowance was paid to those who live with a

condition that leaves them in a state that has reduced their ability to enjoy their lives or

25

has shortened their lifespan. The legislation is worded very generally and makes refer ence

to this generality as it pertains to the liberal interpretation in the preamble. The

Attendance Allowance provided up to $11,196.96 (2003) for the hiring of a support

worker in the case of complete incapacitation and just over five hundred dollars in extra

money for wear and tear on clothing inherent with amputations.

Although no major vocational rehabilitation programs existed within the Pension

Act, these services would have been redundant as the Service Income Security Insurance

Plan (www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/Sisipfs/Pages/default.aspx) provided for them and is

available to every serving member of the Canadian Forces. The Service Income Security

Insurance Plan (SISIP) is administered by the Department of National Defence’s Canadian

Forces Personnel and Family Support Services and provides several financial services to

Canadian Forces Members and veterans. SISIP’s programs include Life and Disability

Insurance, Long-Tem Disability Programs, Vocational Rehabilitation Services, and Financial

Planning, Counselling, and Education. While the Pension Act continues to be the relevant

legislation for those injured prior to 2005, three years into the War in Afghanistan, the

Government enacted the New Veterans Charter and the benefits as outlined by the Pension

Act ceased to be applicable.

Provisions Under the New Veterans Charter

First introduced in 2005, the New Veterans Charter sought to modernise veterans’

benefits. Whereas the Pension Act language was very general and called for a liberal

reading, the New Veterans Charter or Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-

establishment and Compensation Act includes no such clause and is very specific. The NVC

26

provides Rehabilitation Services and Vocational Assistance, an Earnings Loss Benefit,

the Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit, the Permanent Impairment Allowance,

and the Disability Award. The Government describes each as follows:

1. Rehabilitation Services and Vocational Assistance “Three types of rehabilitation services are available: Medical, Psycho -social, Vocational: The rehabilitation process begins as soon as you and your case manager meet – it is important for us to get to know you and your family and for you to get to know us. Next, your case manager will work with you in identifying your goals and challenges. The resulting rehabilitation plan will outline services and benefits you will need, identify local service providers and provide time lines to guide you. You may receive help in many ways, depending on your needs. Here are a few examples: Consultations with specialized medical practitioners - Medications or physiotherapy - Pain management - Psychiatric treatment - Counselling for you and your family by a psychologist or social worker - Addictions counselling - Occupational therapy - Career-related counselling and evaluation - Financial Support for training and related costs such as child care - Help to find a job - Help in returning to the workplace (for example, a gradual return-to-work

program)” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013)

2. Earnings Loss Benefit “An income replacement program that ensures your income does not fall below 75% of your gross pre-release military salary. This benefit is taxable and is payable while you are taking part in the rehabilitation or vocational assistance program. The Earnings Loss Benefit will ensure that you have a total pre-tax income of at least $40,000 per year (with the exception of some reservists)” (Ibid)

3. Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit “A tax-free payment payable if you have completed the Rehabilitation Program and you are able to work but have not been able to find a job or have a low-paying job. Application forms can be obtained from your case manager”(Ibid)

27

4. Permanent Impairment Allowance

“A monthly taxable allowance payable if you suffer from lost job opportunities because you are permanently and severely impaired” (Ibid)

5. Disability Award

“The Disability Award is designed to provide you with an immediate financial support if you have been injured while serving our country. In addition, you may also qualify for additional allowances. Benefits for your survivors are also available.” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012)

Substantial cuts made to the vital services severely injured veterans need

When comparing the provisions for injured veterans under the Pension Act

(http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/) to those in the New Veterans Charter (NVC),

it is apparent that a significant decrease to the benefits available to Canadian Forces

veterans is mandated by the NVC.

Take, for example, the care of a severely disabled veteran. He or she is without a

doubt an incredible encumbrance in every fashion. There are likely to be significant

mental, physical, emotional and most especially, financial stresses. The New Veterans

Charter completely removes the Attendant Care Allowance, crucial to the support of the

most seriously disabled, forcing veterans to pay themselves for this costly but vital

provision, despite the fact that their injuries are service-related (Ibid). This financial

burden might not be as difficult to bear, if it weren’t for further cuts directly affecting those

with dependents. The Pension Act also provided financial support to children and spouses

who often become the primary caregivers and are certain now to fill this role with the cut

of the Attendant Care Allowance. Compounding this burden, the New Veterans Charter

completely removes all compensations for dependents (Ibid, p.29, 40). Furthermore,

28

whereas the Pension Act delivered tax-free assistance to injured veterans for life, the NVC

truncates the benefit programme, ending all services at age 65, when veterans become

eligible for CPP or QPP (Ibid p.47). These cuts to services disproportionately affect those

with more serious injuries. Medical training has so improved since the World Wars that

many severely injured and disabled soldiers who would have previously died have

survived and are in need of serious attention, though this may not have been easily

anticipated (Wiss, 2013).

By far, the largest cuts have been made to those most seriously disabled. The

Attendance Allowance was a substantial financial benefit, and its absence in new

legislation comes as a detriment to those who desperately need it. Those moderately

disabled are not as severely affected, as they would not have been eligible for these

allowances, nor would they be required. For this group of injured veterans, it is the

replacement of the Disability Pension with the Disability Award that has had the biggest

impact. The implications of this change are discussed later in this chapter.

Stakeholder Reaction

Substantial criticisms have arisen from stakeholder groups, as illustrated by the

2010 Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (the Committee), released four years after

the institution of the NVC and entitled A Timely Tune-up for the Living New Veterans

Charter. It is a shame that this “tune-up” did not do more to expose the inadequacies of

NVC. Instead its purpose appears to be to demonstrate the government’s willingness to

make meaningful changes to the document.

In June 2010, just as Parliament was rising for summer break, the Committee

29

presented its end of session report to the House of Commons. The Report reiterated the

Committee’s “tireless support for any measure that can improve the well-being of those

individuals who chose to defend our values of freedom by risking their physical integrity

and their lives” (Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, 40th Parliament, 3rd Session,

2010). Though this language will be discussed while analysing the social construction of

Canadian Forces veterans, it is important to mention the tone and sincerity with which the

Committee conducted its inquiries and made its 18 recommendations. It is just as

important to note the assumptions used to limit the scope of policy alternatives.

The Committee report cites the testimony of Brian Ferguson, Senior Assistant

Deputy Minister, Policy Programs and Partnerships, Department of Veterans Affairs

informing them that the Pension Act’s disability pensions “were awarded for amounts

insufficient to provide an adequate income,” and that the Act was “constructed to provide

compensation for pain and suffering received in service to Canada and not as income

replacement” (Ibid). Furthermore he asserts that VAC “could not offer an income stream

into the future” and under the Pension Act, “no rehabilitation was available” (Ibid). These

statements are used in support of the rationale guiding what the government has

presented as enhancements provided by the New Veterans Charter. Unfortunately his

assertions are patently false, as explained by the Committee in the paragraph immediately

beneath his testimony. The Committee asserts,

“under the Pension Act regime, it would have been possible to introduce measures to facilitate the transition to civilian life for military members released for medical reasons. A number of programs—generally modest in scope—were developed by the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada over the years” (Ibid)

30

Two years earlier, Mr Ferguson gave an interview to the Charlottetown Guardian

newspaper lauding the lump sum Disability Award. (Prince Edward Island is home to

Veterans Affairs Canada Headquarters). Ferguson proclaims that ”for the most seriously

injured (the lump-sum Disability Award) is a much more substantial financial

contribution” (Day, 2008). The Committee Report investigates this contentious portion of

the NVC in some detail, and concludes that despite the contention that the Disability Award

is not income replacement, it is insufficient without major reforms to income replacement

programs within the NVC. This point is the focus of the three guiding questions of the

Report itself and is discussed below.

The committee focused on the three major areas of the NVC: rehabilitation services,

financial benefits and the lump-sum disability award. The Committee guided its

investigation by the following three questions:

“Do the rehabilitation services offered under the NVC make it easier for veterans to transition harmoniously to civilian life than previously? (…) Do the financial benefits offered under the NVC guarantee veterans and their families more solid financial security than previously? (…) Does the lump-sum payment of a disability award enable veterans and their families to achieve greater acceptance of the pain and suffering associated with injury or death than previously?” (Ibid, p. 6)

Their answers were quite undeserving of praise. To the first, the government answered “a

cautious ‘yes’” with the qualification that questions remained regarding how many

veterans actually benefitted from the programs (Ibid). To the second, “a cautious ‘no’” as

the government recognizes that though the least injured veterans might be better o ff, for

veterans with complex, psychological disabilities “the NVC is a distinct step backwards in

financial terms compared to what the Pension Act provided, particularly for young

31

veterans” (Ibid). The Parliamentary Committee was stating what researchers at Queen’s

University would reiterate one year later: that veterans’ benefits for the most injured and

vulnerable veterans were wildly insufficient. Addressing the final guiding question, the

Committee stated

“Very few of the witnesses heard supported this measure in its present

form, particularly as a result of the risks associated with the lump sum

payment of a large amount of money. Terms and conditions of payment

spread over a period of time could quite easily mitigate the problem, but

that will probably not be an adequate solution, unless significant changes

are considered to the programs providing financial benefits for income

replacement purposes” (Ibid)

The Government was made aware of the shortcomings of the New Veterans Charter long

before the Committee presented its report. Criticism was long available to them in the form

of newspaper editorials and letters and briefs especially from stakeholder groups to

Ministers and Members of Parliament. However, for the first time Parliament had produced

a substantial analysis of the NVC. Despite the seemingly critical and concerned nature of

the language in the Committee’s Report on this issue and the guiding questions, the

language used in several other passages suggests support for the NVC and the governmen t.

The Committee’s findings are entirely inconsistent with the remainder of the

Report. Following forty-five pages of analysis and months of notably critical witness

testimony, the Committee somehow concludes, “the vast majority of those affected have

welcomed this reform very enthusiastically” (Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs,

40th Parliament, 3rd Session, 2010, p. 45). Notwithstanding the assertion that “very few of

the witnesses heard supported this measure in its present form,” the Conclusion details

what has occurred since the implementation of the NVC (Ibid, pp. 6, 45). “Our first

32

observation is that the NVC is a significant improvement over the regime under the

Pension Act,” the Report proclaims (Ibid). It touts the new rehabilitation measures

available through the New Veteran’s Charter as a “significant improvement over the old

regime since measures are now in place to provide veterans all the assistance they may

need in the event of an injury” (Ibid). Though additional rehabilitation measures have been

added to the provisions available to injured veterans, rather than providing tax -free

income replacement to ensure their financial security, these new measures are designed to

return the injured veteran to the labour force as expediently as possible and to terminate

the government’s financial commitment just as quickly.

Among the stakeholder groups who testified before the Committee are Canadian

Veterans Advocacy (http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com) and EQUITAS

(http://equitassociety.ca/). Canadian Veterans Advocacy’s mission statement includes

“abolish the Lump Sum Disability Award and restore the Lifetime Pension” as well as “Push

for substantive changes and improvements to the New Veterans Charter” (Canadian

Veterans Advocacy, 2012). They assert,

“Of primary importance was -- and is -- the restoration of the Social Contract and Sacred Trust between soldiers and the Nation they serve. The government abandoned its soldiers and this social contract in 2006 when it passed the New Veterans Charter which replaced the Life-time Disability Pension with an inadequate Lump Sum Disability Award” (Ibid)

EQUITAS’ mission statement proclaims,

“with the introduction of the New Veterans Charter in 2006, all Canadian soldiers who now make an application for disability benefits are awarded primarily a one-time payment with some disabled soldiers receiving various income guarantee funding. The total of all their

33

benefits under the New Veterans Charter is significantly less than those benefits provided by the previous Veteran Affairs Canada Pension Act, or other compensation programs throughout Canada or by the Courts for one-time lump sum disability payments (e.g.: car accident). (…) Although Canadians were told that the New Veterans Charter was brought in to improve benefits for disabled soldiers, it has become clear that this Act is a financial hardship for many disabled soldiers. This is a situation that needs to be fixed. As the result of the New Veterans Charter, many disabled soldiers are in dire circumstances and their stories are heart wrenching” (Equitas Society, 2012)

Though cited frequently within testimony, and often present at hearings, neither group

was invited to testify before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

The NVC: an expedient return to work

While the Pension Act focussed on long-term financial security of injured veterans

in the form of a tax-free monthly allowance, the New Veterans Charter has replaced this

provision with a one-time, lump-sum disability award. Veterans Affairs notes that the

disability award’s “sole intent is to recognize and compensate for the non -economic impact

(pain and suffering) of an injury or illness, and provide immediate financial help,” and that

it has other programs for long-term support (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012). These other

programs have been put in place to “help to compensate for the economic impact of an

injury or illness,” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012) but many veterans are ineligible for

these provisions and, with no other source of income, they are left using the Disability

Award as their income until it runs out. (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012). Currently,

without admittance to a rehabilitation program, there are no measures to deal with

veterans who have spent their Disability Award and haven’t any personal savings to rely

upon.

34

Under the Veterans Charter, there are three benefits and allowances that a veteran

may be granted upon approval: 1) the Earnings Loss Benefit, 2) The Permanent

Impairment Allowance and 3) Canadian Forces Income Support. The criteria for receiving

any of these provisions are incredibly narrow.

1. Earnings Loss Benefit

In order to receive the Earnings Loss Benefit, you must first qualify to be admitted to

the rehabilitation and vocational assistance program. Although Veterans Affairs states

that you do not need to qualify for a Disability Award in order to qualify for th e

rehabilitation or vocational assistance programs, in order to qualify for the

rehabilitation programs, one must have been medically released from the Canadian

Forces or have a service-related injury preventing one from returning to work

(Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013). Prerequisites for rehabilitation and/or vocational

assistance are arguably redundant considering that a service-related injury that

prevents one from working would likely result in a medical release. And, those being

medically released likely have a service-related injury. If one has been medically

released for a service-related injury, one would have likely have been approved for a

Disability Award.

The Earnings Loss benefit provides a mere seventy-five per cent of the injured

veteran’s previous salary, and is taxable. Therefore, a top-paid corporal who would

have enjoyed a salary in the high sixty thousand dollar range is eligible to receive a

maximum taxable benefit of approximately forty thousand dollars, if deemed eligible

for the Earnings Loss Benefit (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013; Canada Revenue Agency,

35

2013; National Defence, 2013).

36

(http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pay-sol/pr-sol/rfncmr-mrfr-eng.asp )

Consider for a moment if the veteran cannot properly care for him/her self

due to illness and requires the support of a spouse. In this case, the household

income lost would far exceed the immediate twenty-five per cent drop due to

matters beyond the veteran’s control, as the spouse of the injured veteran may need

to accommodate him/her, resulting in lower labour-force participation and a

further loss in income. This creates a problem that did not exist prior to the

enactment of the NVC, as the Pension Act provided a steady and reliable income for

injured veterans and provisions were not deducted from additional income earned

by the veteran. Spousal income is not deducted from the Earnings Loss benefit,

therefore, if the spouse of an injured veteran must reduce labour -force participation

and, by extension, their income, in order to care for the veteran, their aggregate

household income drops as well. Regardless of what the Standing Committee on

Veterans Affairs might say, in this case, the Pension Act is far superior to the New

Veterans Charter as the NVC represents a palpable drop in the income support

available to veterans, by its restriction of eligibility, and in the reduction in the

amounts paid to the veteran on a monthly basis.

Additionally, the Earnings Loss Benefit is a temporary measure as it is only

available to those concurrently undergoing a rehabilitation program and expires at

age sixty-five, whereas the Pension Act provision was for life. The EQUITAS Society

notes that the Earnings Loss benefit is typically paid out for a mere two to four

37

years, a far cry from what was available under the Pension Act (Equitas Society,

2012, p. 20). Furthermore, as of 2010, less than eight per cent of those who had

received a Disability Award were eligible for or had completed a rehabilitation

program through Veterans Affairs (Ibid). This means that only a very small

percentage of injured veterans are receiving this kind of income support.

Without this provision and, by extension, without any stable income, the Disability

Award becomes the solitary piece of financial aid available to the veteran, which

means that, despite Veterans Affairs assertion that its “sole intent is to recognize

and compensate for the non-economic impact (pain and suffering) of an injury or

illness,” the Disability Award becomes, in effect, the compensation for the economic

impact of pain and suffering either way (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012).

2. Permanent Impairment Allowance

The second income-replacement measure provided by the NVC is the Permanent

Impairment Allowance. The eligibility criteria for this provision are far narrower

than the Earnings Loss benefit, and despite its name, it does not last very long; the

soldier’s impairment may be permanent, but the financial support available to

him/her is certainly not. In order to qualify for the Permanent Impairment

Allowance, one must be deemed permanently and severely impaired, by the

Minister of Veterans Affairs, must be on a Veterans Affairs-approved rehabilitation

plan and have received a Disability Award (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013).

Therefore, once the rehabilitation program finishes, the veteran is no longer eligible

to receive this entitlement. If less than eight per cent of injured veterans are

38

enrolled in a rehabilitation program and are eligible for the Earnings Loss Benefit,

even fewer could be considered permanently and severely disabled. This provision

is available to a very tiny number of entitled veterans due to its severely restricted

eligibility criteria. In fact, in the first three years of the new regime under the NVC,

only three applicants had been awarded the Permanent Impairment Allowance and

by 2011, that number had only risen to sixteen, despite continuing and overlapping

tours to Afghanistan (Equitas Society, 2012, p. 21; Aiken & Buithenhuis, 2011).

3. Canadian Forces Income Support Program

The last income-replacement measure available to injured veterans under the New

Veterans Charter is the Canadian Forces Income Support Program. Of the three

income-replacement measures contained within the NVC, the Canadian Forces

Income Support Program is the only one that is tax-free. This provision has the

narrowest of criteria; in order to be considered eligible, one must have successfully

completed a rehabilitation program, have a household income insufficient to meet

basic needs (it is unclear how this is defined, as no clear explanation or criteria are

provided) and unable to find work (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013). This is the

program for those who have exhausted all other means of financial support and

those who are no longer eligible for the other income-support programs because

they have reached the age of sixty-five.

To add insult to injury, the maximum monthly allowance under the Canadian

Forces Income Support Program is less than one thousand three hundred dollars a

month for a single veteran and under two thousand dollars a month for a veteran

39

with dependants (Equitas Society, 2012, p. 22). Any other income the veteran

receives in addition to this allowance is deducted from the base amount, leaving

many veterans earning a figure “always at a value below the poverty line” (Ibid).

This amount is woefully inadequate to maintaining a decent standard of living,

especially for elderly veterans completely unable to join the labour market by both

a function of their injuries and of age. It is currently the only provision that will be

available to Canada’s newest veterans unable to find work or elderly and only if

they have completed the rehabilitation plan. At the time, the Veterans Ombudsman

expressed his concerns regarding these benefits,

“The Office has challenged the Department’s decision to use a flawed model—that of the claw back of Service Income Security Insurance Plan long-term disability plan benefits, which is the subject of a class action suit before the Supreme Court of Canada—for the Earnings Loss Benefits package in the New Veterans Charter” (Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, 2009)

The Class action lawsuit mentioned, Dennis Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen was

ultimately successful, though the flawed model remains in use for the income-replacement

measures under the NVC (CBC News, 2013). Before this decision, and from its inception,

SISIP would deduct from its long-term disability benefits the amount of the Veterans

Affairs monthly Disability Pension; leaving Pension Act veterans without the disability

insurance they had paid into. Now, under the NVC, any income earned while receiving the

Earnings Loss benefit is deducted, leaving the veteran with reduced incentive to work. This

is contrary to the neoliberal principles underpinning this policy shift.

The Lump Sum: Replacing a pension despite its intention

40

The most contentious issue in the discourse surrounding the New Veterans Charter

is the Lump Sum Disability Award. The Department of Veterans Affairs describes the

Disability Award as “a one-time, tax-free cash award. It is paid in 5% increments, up to a

maximum of 100%. The current maximum is $298,587.97” (Veterans Affairs Canada,

2012). Under the previous Pension Act, veterans would receive a monthly support

payment for life, depending on the assessed percentage of injury. Under the Lump Sum

Disability provision injuries are ranked on a similar scale and veterans are paid out a

percentage of the maximum amount. Though it may run contrary to the stated sole intent

“to recognize and compensate for the non-economic impact (pain and suffering) of an

injury or illness,” and because of the restrictions and conditions placed upon the income-

replacement regime, “the majority (of injured veterans) are left to derive an annual income

from (a combination of) the investment of their lump sum pay-out (sic) and their own

reduced ability to work and earn income” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012; Equitas Society,

2012, p. 28). In his passionate submission to the Standing Committee on National Defence

in April 2013, Major Ray Wiss, a medical doctor, Canadian Forces Reservist, veteran of the

war in Afghanistan and author of FOB Doc, describes the trials the lump sum payment

thrusts upon injured veterans,

“rather than a pension, they are offered a lump-sum payment. This obliges the injured soldier, often a young person with little financial acumen and a fragile psyche, to make investment decisions that are at the mercy of the stock market. (…) The rules were changed while the game was still being played. CF members wounded in Afghanistan (…) before the VAC Charter came into effect are getting $5000 a month tax-free (or more) for life, as well as benefitting from a number of other assistance programs. The previous Charter clearly offered a level of financial security that was much more reliable and on going (…)” (Wiss, 2013)

41

Three years earlier, Sean Bruyea, in his submission to the Standing Committee on Veterans

Affairs, made strikingly similar remarks,

“Given that a lump sum is given to disabled people, I think it is a bit morally or ethically questionable that we give a lump sum to people in their time of greatest need and distress, and that's usually at the time that they transition out of the military. It's a very difficult time in most people's lives. Even for the most level-headed people, it would be a far stretch for them to manage that money well” (Bruyea, 2010)

The Disability Award leaves all veterans who are ineligible for income-replacement

programs vulnerable and at the mercy of both the financial and labour markets

simultaneously. The Veterans Ombudsman has had considerable input from veterans on

this matter,

“Many Veterans have objected to the decision of the lump sum disability award that replaces the disability pension. The Office has com- missioned an actuarial study to compare the previous Pension Act model with the lump sum model in the New Veterans Charter to estimate the financial, physical, psychological and social wellness of disabled Veterans over their lifetime” (Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, 2009)

Subsequent reforms to how the Disability Award is paid out to injured veterans have made

it more difficult for the Government to claim that it does not replace the life-long pension

provision under the Pension Act.

The Department has recently provided options as to how the Disability Award can

be received by the injured veteran. Instead of obtaining the Award in one lump sum

payment, the veteran may decide to receive a part or the entire Award in monthly

instalments (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013). This new option mimics pension payments,

and despite intentions, will allow veterans to use the Award just as they would a monthly

pension. The main difference is: these instalments eventually end, unlike a pension.

42

The monthly pay out option undermines the government’s assertion that the

Disability Award is not meant to replace a monthly pension as, due to the narrow eligibility

criteria for income-replacement programs, many veterans are left with no other choice but

to use it in this manner. It would seem, in this case, that the Disability Award represents a

disconnect between policy objectives and policy outcomes. Whereas the government says

that the Disability Award was not meant to replace the life-long Disability Pension of the

Pension Act, it has, in effect done so and at significant cost to the veteran. The combination

of the lump sum and the new income-replacement programs are insufficient to provide the

financial security required.

Pension Act* benefits cumulative until 81 years old**

NVC Earnings Loss for 3 year rehabilitation program + Disability Award

Difference between the two

Case example # 1 Private 22 years old, no children+

(50% disability)

$457,991.04

$236,240

- $221,751.04

Case Example #2 Corporal, 30 years old, married with 2 children+

(15% disability)

$175,142.16

$172,122

-$3,020

Case example #3 Major, 35 years old, married with 3 children***+

(100% disability)

$6,180,721.92

$1,967,806.48

-$4,212,915.44

* Figures from 2003 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/page-2.html)

43

**Average Canadian life expectancy (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health26-eng.htm)

*** Includes Attendance Allowance for Pension Act and all allowances available

+ Before tax salary using highest pay scale for NVC Earnings Loss calculation

The three cases above highlight the major financial discrepancy between the

Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter. Though rank and age vary between each case,

these examples demonstrate that the worse a veteran’s disability, the more disadvantaged

he/she is when provided for by the New Veterans Charter. Although the difference is

almost negligible for those with a low disability assessment, the gap between the fiscal

benefits provided by both pieces of legislation widens considerably for moderately and

severely injured veterans. If Major Wiss is correct in his assertion that far more severely

injured soldiers survived injuries they may not have had in previous wars due to medical

advances, the benefit gap affects these severely injured soldiers the most as they receive

far less than they would have had they been injured a decade ago. Although injured

veterans are eligible for standard disability benefits through the CPP

(www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications/evaluations/income/2011/january.shtml), these

benefits are less than $12,000 a year, much less than 75% of the veteran’s income provided

on an interim basis by the Earnings Loss Benefit and insufficient to accommodate the

complicated injuries of war. Those who have sacrificed the most are now bearing the brunt

of the reduction.

44

Chapter IV

The New Veterans Charter as a Neoliberal Policy

The New Veterans Charter’s income-replacement measures provide for seventy-five

per cent of the veteran’s post-release salary, which has been demonstrated to be

insufficient to meet basic needs in some cases, and in all others represents a decrease in

the standard of living of the veteran. Each of these programs provides less than what the

veteran is used to making, or less than what is required to achieve a basic standard of

living. All programs, from the rehabilitation program to the Canadian Forces Income

Support Program situate themselves in relation to the labour market and emphasise a

return of the veteran to the labour market. The rehabilitation and vocational assistance

program’s eligibility is contingent on the veteran having a service-related injury and being

unable to return to work. To receive any of the other financial benefits, one must first be

eligible for these programs, the goal of which is a return to the labour market.

While the Pension Act provided compensation for life based on the injury

sustained by the veteran, these new provisions have narrow eligibility criteria and are only

available for a limited amount of time unless the veteran is demonstrably permanently

physically disabled. These new income-replacement measures are tied to the return to the

labour market and not the injury sustained; financial compensation has shifted from an

injury or condition-centric approach to a market-centric approach. This shift is consistent

with the principles of neoliberalism.

The rehabilitation and vocational services programmes available to veterans have

45

been privatised and are not run by the Government of Canada, but have been outsourced to

three private partners, the March of Dimes Canada, a non profit social agency, and two

private and commercial consultant agencies, operating together under the moniker Can

Vet VR Services (CanVet, 2009). This outsourcing to the private sector in the form of a

public-private partnership (P3) is characteristic of neoliberal social policy as it involves

less state and more market. (Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 2005). As

neoliberalism strives to privatize government, essentially bringing a wider range of human

interaction into the market, P3s contribute through the private provision of welfare, an

area traditionally served by the Keynesian welfare state (Ibid). Through the P3 with

CanVet, Veterans Affairs Canada, and by extension the Government of Canada have

privatized social welfare provision, creating a market for the rehabilitation of injured

veterans so that they may, in turn become gainfully employed once again to serve the

market as members of the labour force. The focus has moved from compensating the

veteran for his injury to moving past the injury as expediently as possible and returning

the veteran to market activity. Consistent with other neoliberal reforms, the financial

compensation packages rely on an incentive structure, as market participants responding

to incentives can create the desired market outcomes. The financial compensation

packages, all of which are tied to participation in the rehabilitation and vocational program

are time limited, providing a sense of urgency while all the while providing inadequate

income in order to incentivise a quick recovery and a return to the labour force.

The Political Economy of the New Veterans Charter

In effect, the New Veterans Charter has removed the social safety net once enjoyed

46

by veterans and has replaced it with a neoliberal rehabilitation system that addresses the

needs of the market as opposed to the needs of the veteran. Neoliberalism seeks the

marketization of human interaction and in this case, what is considered the succe ssful

rehabilitation of veterans is a return to the labour force. The Rehabilitation Program places

the burden on the individual to heal and rehabilitate at a rate much faster than would have

been expected under the Pension Act. With a life-long Disability Pension, veterans were

free to heal at their own pace and to explore career options without fear of the impending

loss of financial support. It is understood that “VAC found that many veterans served by the

Pension Act were focusing on their disability rather than on rehabilitation due to the

structure of the financial benefit” and that “the NVC attempted to rectify this by dividing

financial benefits into compensation for pain and suffering, and compensation for earning

loss due to disability,” this analysis misses the point. (Aiken & Buithenhuis, 2011, p. 4). The

Pension Act provided long-term financial security to veterans in recognition of their

service-related disability. It provided for a guaranteed standard of living for the rest of the

veteran’s life. If the Government of Canada was concerned that veterans were not receiving

the vocational training and the rehabilitation they required, they might have introduced

enhanced measures to suit these goals. As Drazen notes: “actual policies are often quite

different than optimal policies, the latter defined as subject to technical and informational,

but not political constraints” (Drazen, 2000, p. 7).

In this case, the neoliberal hegemony as described by Harvey can be considered the

political restraints in play during the complete overhaul of the veterans’ disability

compensation package. The New Veterans Charter, as it remains today, may be the optimal

policy within the greater neoliberal framework, however is it demonstrably not the

47

optimal policy from the point of view of those it is meant to serve. On the broader question

of who benefits from the change and who pays, it is obvious that it is both this hegemonic

agenda that benefits, as it serves to perpetuate it and it is, undoubtedly, paid for by the

veterans who are left with less financial security and forced to prematurely join the labour

force in order to make up for this insecurity.

The Social Construction of Veterans

As noted in Chapter 2, the social construction of the veteran has moved from

“advantaged” or deserving under the Pension Act to “dependent” under the New Veterans

Charter, as defined by Schneider and Ingram. Whereas the Pension Act provided the

financial security for veterans to properly deal with their disabilities without interrupting

their level of income and ability to care for themselves and their families, the NVC treats

veterans as dependents in need of financial support but only for the duration of their

rehabilitation program, which is designed to return the veteran to productive labour. This

neoliberal emphasis on individual responsibility of the veteran removes Canada’s

collective responsibility to care for the veteran, having risked life, limb and mental state

and suffering a loss to one or more. Now constructed as “dependent,” veterans fall into the

same category as welfare recipients and subject to the same unjust neoliberal rhetoric.

This rhetoric, whether intentional or not, justifies the reduction in financial benefits as

continued emphasis is placed on individual responsibility. This is fundamentally

problematic in the case of veterans as, upon enlistment, a soldier enters into an unlimited

liability contract with the Government of Canada. This protects the Government from civil

action in the case of mental or physical injury to the soldier. Soldiers enter into this

48

contract willingly as the expectation is that they will be properly cared for by the

comprehensive benefit package they are entitled to in the case of injury. It would be

unreasonable for one to enter into such contract if it were believed that the benefits the

Government provides in these cases would be wildly insufficient as demonstrated of the

New Veterans Charter. What is especially troublesome is that for the great number of still-

serving soldiers who joined the Canadian Forces while the Pension Act dictated these

benefits, as Ray Wiss so eloquently states, “The rules were changed while the game was

still being played” (Wiss, 2013). Wiss continues,

“we asked (them) to work with ‘unlimited liability.’ But half way through the most intense combat mission we have been involved in since the Korean War, the Government of Canada Changed their liability toward them, y reducing the benefits to which the wounded were entitled” (Ibid)

If injured after the NVC came into effect, these soldiers who thought they were signing up

to an organization that provided life-long support in case of injury were instead subject to

the diminished programs of the NVC. Whereas they may have been viewed as entitled to

the benefits under the Pension Act, they are now dependent on the provisions under the

NVC and subject to its narrow eligibility requirements. The Government was able to sell

this removal of benefits and neoliberal shift in policy by how it constructed the change.

What can only be described as a reduction was labelled an enhancement.

The Social Construction of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter: Better than bad is

still worse than good

With the original incarnation of the New Veterans Charter receiving high criticism,

on November 17th, 2010 Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn gave a speech

49

announcing the enactment of an Enhanced New Veterans Charter. He described the

enhancements as “a series of improvements to the care and support of our Canadian

Forces personnel, our Veterans and their families” because “we owe it to these brave men

and women to ensure that they can count on Canada in the event they are injured in the

line of duty.” (Government of Canada, 2010). The Minister announced “the addition of an

additional monthly payment of $1,000 — for life — to help our most seriously wounded

veterans who are no longer able to work” (Ibid). He announced that enhancements would

contribute to “improving access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance and the

Exceptional Incapacity Allowance in order to include up to 3,500 more Veterans” (Ibid).

He announced that “improvements” had been made to the Disability Award,

“The legislation that we are tabling today ensures that our Veterans and Canadian Forces members have that choice. Those receiving a Disability Award will have the option to receive it either:

through annual payments over any number of years the recipient chooses; as a partial lump sum and partial annual payments over any number of years the recipient chooses; or as a single, lump-sum payment. furthermore, at any time, the beneficiary can choose to be paid their outstanding balance as a lump-sum payment” (Government of Canada, 2010)

Minister Blackburn made sure to educate the crowd properly on the Disability Award,

"Once again, I would like to reiterate that, contrary to information that is often conveyed, the Disability Award is not intended as a replacement for the Disability Pension, or as an income replacement. The Disability Award is meant to compensate for pain and suffering. Under the New Veterans Charter, there are still monthly payments for life for those who need them” (Government of Canada, 2010)

50

The Minister uses the words addition, enhance and improve several times throughout his

announcement; he socially constructs the NVC by branding the legislation an enhancement

and labelling its measures improvements. By reiterating the assertion that the Disability

award is not meant to replace the Disability Pension, he perpetuates the social

construction of the injured veteran and legitimizes narrowed eligibility by constructing

some veterans as more deserving of financial stability than others all the while leaving

veterans to use the Disability Award in this manner as income-replacement measures

remain insufficient. He asserts that these changes “meet veterans needs,” suggesting that

they are sufficient to quell the criticism of individual veterans and stakeholder groups.

Unfortunately for the Minister, they did not.

In their position paper on the New Veterans Charter, EQUITAS, a Vancouver -based

non profit organization criticizes the way the NVC was portrayed by the Government of

Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion, “they gave the impression that many NVC disability

benefits were universal, and paralleled (…) traditional workers compensation program (…)

and this advertising (is) ‘overselling’ at best and ‘disingenuous by intent’ at worst” (Equitas

Society, 2012). These stakeholders were able to recognize that the social construction of

the policy was dishonest and are attempting to expose this, however the government has

far more resources at their disposal and can easily flood the discourse with its

construction.

In October 2011, the newly appointed Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney gave

another speech discussing the Enhanced New Veterans Charter. He asserts that his

Government’s construction of the NVC has been successful, that “there is a growing

51

recognition that this new approach is focused on wellness, and that it really is helping our

injured and ill men and women to make the best recoveries possible, in the shortest time

possible” (Government of Canada, 2011). The Government has socially constructed the

veteran as a “dependent” and deserving of a new approach that facilitates recovery as fast

as possible. This is consistent with neoliberal thought and is being socially constructed as

enhancements and improvements to what was once available to veterans. This benefits the

Government as it can been seen to be improving services to ill and injured veterans while

simultaneously reducing the financial benefits available to them or reorganizing how the

same amount of financial support is administered. This comes as a detriment to veterans as

they receive less of the help they need, less frequently and less predictably.

Perhaps the Government truly believes that they are improving benefits. Perhaps

their social construction of the New Veterans Charter is not malicious and cynical. Perhaps

it is so committed to the neoliberal ideological framework that it considers the New

Veterans Charter a real improvement to the Pension Act. The New Veterans Charter

focuses on the individual responsibility to rehabilitate and re-join society, whereas the

Pension Act focused on the collective responsibility of society to take care of those who

have sacrificed life and limb on its behalf. The Government wants the emphasis on

recovery and not on the injury itself. What seems to have been lost in the discussion are

the veterans who are getting by with demonstrably less than they have ever had to before.

52

Chapter V

Conclusion

Neoliberalism’s ideological hegemony has been characterized by the retreat of the

state in social policy, the reduction of social benefits, and the creation of markets in

additional areas of human life. The New Veterans Charter, a creation of the neo-liberal

Conservative federal government under Prime Minister Steven Harper, has reduced state

involvement in the administration of programs and benefits by shifting responsibility to

the private sector. Under the Charter financial assistance has been demonstrably reduced

by the implicit replacement of the Disability Pension with the Disability Award, and in so

doing the Government has fundamentally created a market for veteran’s assistance. This

shift has left many veterans worse off than their colleagues wounded prior to 2004, some

of whom suffered an injury during the same mission to Afghanistan. Through effective

branding and labelling, the Conservative government has constructed the policy change as

an enhancement, better serving the men and women of the Canadian Forces and improving

their lives.. But the Charter reforms have meant a reduction in the fiscal benefits available

to veterans, negatively affecting those of all ranks and ages, though the most seriously

injured and sincerely in need are by far the most severely disadvantaged. When civilians

sign up to be soldiers and engage in a contract of unlimited liability with the Crown, there

is an expectation that, if injured in service to the country, veterans will be cared for

sufficiently. Prior to the enactment of the New Veterans Charter, the Pension Act provided

a predictable life-long, tax free Disability Pension but the government has replaced this,

along with several other allowances, with a one-time, lump-sum Disability Award. This has

53

proven wildly insufficient and constitutes a breach of the expectation that Crown and

country will properly care for those injured in service to them, the expectation created by

the promise Prime Minister Robert Borden made so long ago.

This research has revealed that:

1) The New Veterans Charter is an archetypal neoliberal policy representing a

significant reduction in fiscal benefits allotted to injured veterans of the Canadian

Forces. The Conservative government presents the New Veteran’s Charter as

enhancing and improving the services available.

The New Veterans Charter’s ‘improvements’ certainly do not improve the financial

security of injured veterans as the government asserts. There are a number of ways to

measure the drastic decrease as well as several areas and programmes within the

historical legislation that have been curtailed or abolished completely. Aitken and

Buitenhuis identify their “most obvious” observation as the

“Pension Act provides a significant financial advantage over the New

Veterans Charter (NVC) for veterans with severe disabilities. The

difference between the Pension Act and the NVC compensations is

greatest for veterans who live longer, those who are married and have

more children, those with a higher disability assessment, and those

released at a lower rank. These groups are financially disadvantaged

under the NVC compared to the Pension Act (Aiken & Buithenhuis, 2011,

p. 47)

This conclusion is revealed in the statistical comparison of the benefits from the two

different programs. The New Veterans Charter represents only 58-69% of the funding

available to severely injured veterans under the Pension Act, depending on age and rank

and assuming the member is married with two children, which is the average (74%) for

clients served under the NVC (Ibid p.20, 24). These reductions are severely exacerbated

54

when cuts to services and dependant supports further shift the burden from the

government to the soldier and his family. This is confirmed by the notional cases in

Chapter III, where the most severely injured veteran was most disadvantaged with the

highest assessed injury and more dependents, though veterans of all variables were

disadvantaged under the NVC.

These problems have been brought to the government’s attention by way of

Ombudsman’s Reports, Parliamentary Committees, stakeholders and, most recently, the

application for a class-action lawsuit on behalf of veterans receiving reduced benefits

under the New Veterans Charter. However no meaningful change has been made, though

the federal government continues to laud the NVC as properly taking care of our veterans.

Though the government uses rehabilitation and vocational assistance programs as

examples of improvements to the services available to injured veterans, narrowed

eligibility requirements have left many veterans unable to access what is offered. What is

more, many of the ‘new’ programs are duplicates and therefore superfluous as National

Defence’s SISIP program continues to offer similar and overlapping services. The NVC

offers far less than its predecessor and what it does offer, wasn’t missing.

2) In presenting the NVC, the government has employed techniques to shift injured

veterans from their position as “deserving” to dependent and therefore undeserving,

in order to reduce the benefits available to them and terminate government liability.

The Charter is also supposed to provide an incentive to injured veterans to return to

employment.

55

Whereas, traditionally, the Department of National Defence’s SISIP program

provided vocational rehabilitation to injured veterans and the Department of Veterans

Affairs provided financial security through the life-long, tax-free Disability Pension, the

NVC has mandated the Department of Veterans Affairs to assume SISIP’s previous role and

the veteran’s return to the labour-force has become the primary goal of the programs

provided for under the NVC. This, coupled with the demonstrably severe reduction in

financial assistance has incentivised a speedy return to the labour force, as financial

benefits are now much more limited. Furthermore, as many programs rely on self-

identification of mental and physical wounds, the application process can be stigmatising

and has reduced veterans from deserving beneficiaries to dependent (and undeserving)

clients. The NVC disability provision is now labelled an award rather than a pension,

further exacerbating the effects of this shift by suggesting that, once received, the Disability

Award provides what society and government have prescribed as sufficient regardless of

the fact that it may be enough to care for the veteran’s individual needs.

3) Not only has the government severely reduced the fiscal benefits received by

clients of the Department of Veterans Affairs but it is the case that the benefits

currently available are insufficient to provide support and assistance to veterans

who are affected by their participation in the war.

Notwithstanding the fact that the NVC represents a severe reduction in the financial

support offered to injured veterans, those who have sustained the greater injuries are

exponentially worse off than their processors under the Pension Act. With the repeal of the

Attendance Allowance, many veterans are left to rely on spousal or community support.

56

This shift is consistent with the neoliberal retreat of the government from the provision of

social policy and the downloading of responsibility for this provision on to the private and

third sectors, the results of which can be financial devastating to families. Even if the

veteran is accepted into the rehabilitation program and is receiving a 75% income support,

without provisions for attendant care, spouses and families are left to fill the gap, reducing

their labour force participation, forcing families into precarious employment and further

negatively impacting total household income. The design of these programs has been

described by stakeholders as forcing injured veterans to live at or below the poverty line.

4) Lastly, the Government of Canada, in providing insufficient veterans benefits, is in

breach of the contract it signs on behalf of the Crown with each and every soldier

entering the Forces and into armed combat.

Under the NVC, no longer can soldiers depend on the bold proclamation of Prime

Minister Robert Borden that,

“the maimed and the broken will be protected, the widow and the orphan will be helped and cherished. Duty and decency demand that those who are saving democracy shall not find democracy a house of privilege, or a school of poverty and hardship" (Veterans Affairs Canada - Canadian Forces Advisory Council, 2004)

Veteran’s benefits have been severely reduced , to the point of insufficiency, and spousal

and family support have been removed, placing veterans at a desk in the aptly described

school of poverty and hardship. Veterans sacrifice life and limb with the expectation that

they will be properly cared for by those they so diligently and selflessly serve. The NVC is a

betrayal of this sacred trust that has existed since Canada first asked its sons and

57

daughters to fight on behalf of freedom and democracy and against the tyranny of

nationalism and the brutal ambition of the Triple Alliance.

Canada has made incredible contributions in the area of social justice and has in the

past been considered a bastion of equity concerned with the wellbeing of its citizens and,

indeed, of the world. We have recognised that sometimes the most undesirable acts are

required of those serving in the armed forces and that these sacrifices come with a cost,

but that this requirement is accompanied by a commitment to value the efforts of those

called to service and to providing for those who have made this deep, personal sacrifice on

behalf of all Canadians. Though our men and women of the Canadian Forces continue to

make these sacrifices, the government has fallen short on its commitment to care for those

injured in its service. Without meaningful changes to the provisions available to ill and

injured veterans, this commitment will remain unfulfilled, to the detriment of those who

are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of all. It is time that Canada abandons the

rhetoric and makes a meaningful sacrifice for those willing to sacrifice for us.

58

References Aiken, A., & Buithenhuis, A. (2011). "Supporting Canadian Veterans with Disabilities: A Comparison of Financial Benefits." Queen's University, School of Policy Studies. Kingstoan: . Canadian Institute for Military and Veterans Health Research. Bercuson, D. J. (2004, January 1). Canada’s Military Ethos . Retrieved Feb 19, 2012, from Legion Magazine: http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2004/01/canadas-military-ethos/ Bhagwati, J. (1994). "Free Trade: Old and New Challenges." The Economic Journal , 104, 231-246. Bruyea, S. (2010, April 15). Witness Testimony. Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs . Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Canada Revenue Agency. (2013, January 3). Federal Tax Rates for 2013. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from Canada Revenue Agency: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html Canadian Veterans Advocacy. (2012, March 4). About Us. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from Canadian Veterans Advocacy: http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/aboutus.html Canadian Veterans Advocacy. (2012). About Us. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from Canadian Veterans Advocacy: http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/aboutus.html CanVet. (2009). CanVet Partners. Retrieved April 25, 2013, from CanVet VR Services: http://www.canvetservices.com/partners-eg.html CBC News . (2012, March 7). Veterans Affairs cut will hit services, says union . Retrieved March 28, 2012, from CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2012/03/07/pei-veteran-affairs-cuts-union-casey-584.html CBC News. (2013, April 15). Veteran settlement 'life-altering,' says plaintiff. Retrieved May 5, 2013, from CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/04/05/ns-veteran-clawback-manuge-reaction.html Connell, R. (2010). Understanding Neoliberalism. In S. Braedley, M. Luxton, S. Braedley, & M. Luxton (Eds.), Neoliberalism and Everyday Life (pp. 23-36). Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Cosgrove, K. M. (2007). Branded Conservatives: How the Brand Brought the Right from the Fringes to the Center of American Politics. New York: Perter Laang Publishing.

59

CTV News. (2005, Dec 28). Tories would give vets their due, Harper vows. Retrieved March 21, 2012, from CTV News: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20051227/harper_veterans_051228/ Day, J. (2008, February 21). Veterans Affairs workload increasing as face of Canada's veterans changes. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Employment/2008-02-21/article-1299307/Veterans-Affairs-workload-increasing-as-face-of-Canadas-veterans-changes/1 Drazen, A. (2000). Political Economy in Macroeconomics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Equitas Society. (2012, April). The Reduction of Canadian Forces Members’ Disability Benefits. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from Equitas Society: http://equitassociety.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/position_paper_NVC_final_april_2012-b.pdf Government of Canada. (2011, October 11). Enhanced New Veterans Charter: Speaking Notes for The Honourable Steven Blaney. Retrieved April 27, 2013, from Veterans Affairs Canada. Government of Canada. (2003, January 1). Pension Act. Retrieved May 4, 2013, from Justice Laws Website: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/page-2.html Government of Canada. (2010, November 17). Tabling of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act: Speaking Notes for The Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn. Retrieved April 25 2013, from Veterans Affairs Canada: https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/press/viewspeech/556 Government of Canada. (2004, October). Volume 1 of the Disability Pension Program Evaluation. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from Veterans Affairs Canada: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/reports/deptaudrep/dp_evaluation Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2007). "Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 610, 22-44. Lutz, A. (2008). "Who Joins the Military?: A Look at Race, Class, and Immigration Status." Journal of Political and Military Sociology , 36 (2), 167-188. McKelvey Bell, F. (1919). "Medical Services of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment." Canadian Medical Association Journal , 34-40. McNally, D. (2011). Global Slump: The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance. Black Point: Fernwood Publishing.

60

National Defence. (2013, March 28). Regular Force and Class C NCM Rates - 2013. Retrieved April 25, 2013, from National Defence and the Canadian Forces: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pay-sol/pr-sol/rfncmr-mrfr-eng.asp Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. (2009). Annual Report 2008-2009. Government of Canada, Veterans Affairs. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993, June). "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy." The American Political Science Review , 334-347. Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park: Cummings. Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (2010). A TImely Tune-Up for the New Veterans Charter. Parliament of Canada, House of Commons. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada. Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, 41st Parliament. (2012). Improving Services to Improve Quality of Life for Veterans and Their Families. House of Commons Canada, Parliament of Canada. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada. Stone, D. (2005). Foreword. In A. L. Scheider, & H. M. Ingram (Eds.), Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Social Policy (pp. ix-xiii). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Stone, D. J. (2012, March 30). On healthcare, not what the doctor ordered: Free-market solutions won't help many of the uninsured. Retrieved July 23, 2012, from LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/30/opinion/la-oe-stone-free-market-healthcare--20120330 Stone, D. (1997). Policy Paradox. New York; London: W.W. Norton. The Canadian Press . (2012, March 6). Opposition motion to halt cuts at Veterans Affairs defeated. Retrieved March 28, 2012, from CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/06/veterans-board-benefits-privacy.html The Governnment of Canada. (1984). Retrieved February 24, 2012, from Department of Justice Canada: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/V-1/page-1.html#h-3 Veterans Affairs Canada - Canadian Forces Advisory Council. (2004, March). The Origins and Evolution of Veterans Benefits in Canada, 1914-2004. Retrieved May 31, 2012, from Veterans Affairs Canada: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/forces/nvc/reference#a01 Veterans Affairs Canada. (2012, November 13). Disability Award - The Facts. Retrieved April 25, 2013, from Veterans Affiars Canada: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/facts-fait/lump-sum

61

Veterans Affairs Canada. (2010, November 17). Government of Canada Introduces Legislation to Improve Financial Aid for Canadian Forces Personnel and Veterans . Retrieved February 19, 2012, from Veterans Affairs Canada: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/press/viewrelease/1042 Veterans Affairs Canada. (2013, April 5). Rates. Retrieved April 25, 2013, from Veterans Affairs Canada: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/rates#disaward Veterans Affairs Canada. (2013, March 26). Services and Benefits. Retrieved April 25, 2013, from Veterans Affairs Canada: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/financial-benefits Veterans Affairs Canada. (2006, April 6). The Government of Canada Supports its Troops at Home and Abroad. Retrieved Mar 20, 2012, from Veterans Affairs Canada: http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/press/viewrelease/372 Wiss, R. (2013, April 29). After the Hurly-Burly's Done. Submission to the Standing Comittee on Veterans Affairs . Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.