# The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread



## Scoobie Newbie

I think this was touched on before but it here it is in more laymen terms.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060401/vets_benefits_060401/20060401?hub=Canada


Updated Sat. Apr. 1 2006 11:43 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The federal government biggest overhaul of benefits since the Second World War is kicking in just as Canada takes on its most aggressive military role in decades.

However, some critics worry that the new veterans' charter, supported by all parties last spring and taking effect on April 1, might shortchange wounded soldiers.

The key change is giving disabled veterans a lump-sum payment of $250,000 instead of a monthly tax-free pension.

Critics say that means less money for those injured in service of their country.

"Disable soldiers, under the current system, will receive anywhere from 80 to 150 per cent more than they will after April 1," said Sean Bruyea, a Gulf War veteran.

He describes the move as a "callous, bureaucratic move to save money on the backs of disabled veterans."

While the federal government disputes Bruyea's numbers, a Veterans Affairs study does not concern about the cost of rising pension claims by younger soldiers.

Lump-sum payments "would serve, over time, to regain control of an alarming future liability scenario," the study said.

Defender argue the new plan offers quicker benefits and more help.

"Job training, vocational, could be social rehabilitation," said Pierre Allard of the Royal Canadian Legion.

He also defends the lump-sum payment, saying, "Actuarially, that lump sum will produce similar amounts of money as does a monthly pension."

The federal government said the new rules are not set in stone.

CTV News has learned there is a proposal under consideration to allow a choice, in some cases, between a lump-sum and a monthly payment.

With a report from CTV's Roger Smith


----------



## Franko

Just goes to show you how much the politicians really care about veterans.

Regards


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I don't know.  What is wrong with taking $250K, if you think you might not live for more than a couple years?  Or you are thinking about starting a business?  Or feel like investing the money yourself?  

I'm not saying that this is good for every set of circumstances, but I could easily see how many people would prefer a lump sum, depending on their personal situation.

Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Yes you make a point SKT but perhaps an option is preferable.


----------



## orange.paint

Surprise,surprise. Soldier's are in more volatile regions and now they look at the numbers of pensions they will have to pay out.This really pisses me off. 

Put your life on the line for the government,and watch them turn their back on you afterwards.

Now my wife has to listen to me ran all night.


----------



## LIKELY

In todays national Post
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=eaa4a573-c006-47af-8172-245b9dc537c4

Must investigate further.


----------



## Peacenik

Personally, I think that $250,000 is a bit low... if a service member had the option of paying into a civilian life/disability insurance plan, the payout would be much higher.  The fact is that once the government has asked you to deploy, it should assume the entire financial cost of sending you, including the the cost of voiding your insurance plan.   

How are they going to get us to join the armed forces if they aren't going to pay for the cost of sending them to war?


----------



## Bin-Rat

They said it wrong in there... You DON"T get $250,000...

Actually the way it works is you can get UP TO $250,000 for example if you are assesed at only a 5% disability, guess swhat you will get  a lump-sum payment of only $12,500. To get the $250,000 you have to assessed at 100% Disability...

So it is mis-quoted...

As from first post 
The key change is giving disabled veterans a lump-sum payment of $250,000 instead of a monthly tax-free pension.

and as per that Link for laymens terms..
The key change is giving disabled veterans a lump-sum payment of up to $250,000 instead of a monthly tax-free pension. The payment will be pro-rated depending on the level of disability.
So again 5% = $12,500
10% = 25,000
25% = 75,000

Now, heh from Vac point of interest at least onthe old system, when ever you applied if they did in fact give you a favourable decission what you basiclly got was 5%, then if you felt it should be more, then it's fight time and you then start a life long fight to get them to raise it to where it should be.

In this link you will see, from a 1998 report on how they had been giving out assessents, the solid line would be WW vets and the dotted line to CF...

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9823xe04.html

From seeing that chart, if you think your gonna get a high assesment.. I would think again... They think anything over 15% is really to much, and if you get it 15% your doing well...

Haven't been able to find on the internet any current postings, seems after 1999 they haven't posted any more information like this, so one can't see how bad the VAC is actually doing... but... oh well..

Oh found the link I was looking for....
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/vete-e/REP-E/rephealthfeb99part3-e.htm

Edited to add new foundlink


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

I think there are 2 main points that VAC needs to improve, and never would have happened under the Liberals:

1.  How they figure out what you benefit amount should be; and

2.  The gosh darn time it takes them to make any decisions.  Its ridiculous.

I think part of the problem is they have a Department rampent with people who have never wore so much as a Boy Scout uniform.  

Scale the department back if needed, staff it properly and begin by streamlining the way you determine someone's beneifts, and by providing benefits IN A TIMELY MANNER.

Last Jan, I had my assessment with the Senior District Medical officer here in Halifax...the Doctor was saying "so when you get the decision back, and appeal it..."

Thats just retarded.

Vet's should be treated like Vet's, period.  Not the same as Bessy-Sue who is trying to get welfare.

But they need to clean their shite up because this system, I am finding out as I am wading thru the BS now, from an injury (jumping out 'o Herc's) in 1992 that I have CF98s for, and paperwork up the ying yang, which should be very cut and dried...they told me in Jan "I wouldn't expect to hear anything now until atleast August at the earliest".

I am fine, I can work, walk, etc.  What about people that are REALLY injured?  Are they getting treated like Bessy-Sue trying to weasel her way in the Welfare $ pot?  I hope not.   

 :threat:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Ottawa makes special payment for dead soldiers: $250,000 to each family: Four families were not covered under Veterans Charter

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060502/npt/060502ax.htm
PUBLICATION:  National Post 
DATE:  2006.05.02 
EDITION:  National 
SECTION:  Canada 
PAGE:  A6 
BYLINE:  Elizabeth Thompson 
SOURCE:  CanWest News Service 
DATELINE:  OTTAWACANADA  
WORD COUNT:  755 


OTTAWA - Stephen Harper's government has voted behind closed doors to pay $1-million to the families of four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan over the course of the past year, CanWest News Service has learned. 

The special ex gratia payment adopted by a Cabinet Order-in-Council dated April 6 will see $250,000 go to each of the families of soldiers killed between May 13, 2005, and March 31, 2006, while on active duty. The payment is being made in addition to the monthly survivor payments of $1,500 or more a month to which the families were already entitled. 

The four soldiers killed during the time period covered by the Order-in-Council are Private Robert Costall, who was killed in a firefight with Taliban insurgents on March 28; Master Corporal Timothy Wilson and Corporal Paul Davis, who died after their LAV III crashed March 2; and Private Braun Scott Woodfield, who was killed Nov. 24, 2005, when his LAV III was involved in a traffic accident. 

The Order-in-Council does not cover the last four soldiers killed in Afghanistan: Lieutenant William Turner, Corporal Matthew Dinning, Corporal Randy Payne and Bombadier Myles Mansell. They all fall under the terms of the new Veterans Charter, which provides for a lump-sum payment of $250,000 for the families of soldiers killed rather than monthly benefits. 

Nor does it cover members of the Canadian Forces who were killed prior to May 13, 2005 -- the date that Parliament approved the new Veterans Charter. The families of the seven soldiers killed in Afghanistan prior to that date, including four soldiers killed by friendly fire in April, 2002, fall under the old regime of monthly benefits. 

Under the old system, for example, a widow with two young children would not receive a lump sum payment, but would receive $1,500 a month for life and $900 a month for her children until they reach 18 years old (or 25 years old if they are still in school.) 

Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson said the idea of making a special payment to the families of the four soldiers came to him as he was carrying out the painful task of writing a letter of condolence to the widow of one of the soldiers killed. 

"I guess it was the death of the first young men that occurred. I was writing a letter of condolence to one of the young widows and I was thinking if this had happened after April 1 she would have had $250,000 tax free to help her start her life over again in addition to the other benefits." 

"It's one of the things I thought of because in my previous life I used to be a financial planner and I just know to a young family how important that $250,000 would be. It's tax-free. It could make a big difference in terms of paying off a mortgage or buying a home or just securing a future for them and their children. So it's one of the things I felt compelled to do and I am just very pleased that the Prime Minister and my colleagues supported me on it." 

Mr. Thompson defended the decision to single out those killed over the past year but to not go further back in time. 

"I picked the passage of the [Veterans Charter] bill because that was the only legislative framework that we could build it around. If we didn't have a particular date like that, you could conceivably go back to the Korean War or World War II, I suppose." 

If the implementation of the Veterans Charter had coincided with when it was adopted by Parliament, the families of the four soldiers would have already been covered by the new provisions, he pointed out. 

While Parliament adopted it on May 13, 2005, it only went into effect on April 1 of this year, he said. 

"As a result of that, a number of families basically fell through the cracks in terms of the $250,000 tax free that the young families of these soldiers would have received as a result of their death. This ex gratia payment really fills that void." 

A new system in place that calls for a $250,000 payout to the families of soldiers killed coupled with the increased danger to troops currently serving in Afghanistan has prompted the government to increase the amount it budgets for those kinds of payments, acknowledged Mr. Thompson. 

"Veterans Affairs will be granted more money than it was last year. I guess in a sad kind of way, sobering kind of way, we know that some of that money will be going to those families whose lives have been changed because of a tragedy in Afghanistan."


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

To the best of my knowledge... this is not "Harper's special money".  This is a SISIP disbursement when you pass away while on theater.


----------



## scoutfinch

While I stand to be corrected, SISIP is an insurance program.  The money to which the article refers is Treasury Money and not related to SISIP.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

I probably am wrong... and lets hope one of them Admin guys clarify this one for us.... But my understanding is that before one of them dangerous deployment, there is extra SISIP paperwork/coverage because of the nature of the mission.


----------



## scoutfinch

You are correct that overseas personnel are atleast encouraged to max out their SISIP coverage prior to deployment but if I recall correctly, this coverage only extends to the extent of $400,000.  Like I said, SISIP is insurance.  It is underwritten by Manulife Financial, I believe.  Just like any other policy of insurance, the member pays for the coverage.

The money referrenced in the article is different as is the Veterans Act money.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

I heard the higher ups talking about it.... the 400K is the normal thing we all have.... the 250k is extra....


----------



## camochick

We pay for the 400,000 and its something my husband had to go and sign up for from sisip. It's not something that you automatically get.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach

camochick said:
			
		

> We pay for the 400,000 and its something my husband had to go and sign up for from sisip. It's not something that you automatically get.


 I never claimed that it was automatic.  My wife and I elected to only have 100K each.... the question is about the extra 250K


----------



## scoutfinch

I am not sure if I am making myself clear:

The $250,000 referred to in the article has NOTHING to do with SISIP.  

SISIP is an insurance policy offered to service members (which I believe is underwritten by Manulife Financial) that does not have the typical *act of war* clause contained in most other insurance policies.


----------



## AmmoTech90

I think it's a really nice gesture.

But does that mean that everyone who filed a VAC claim between 13 May 05 and 31 March 06 will be able to receive benefits under both the old system (the pension) and the new Veteran's Charter (the lump sum)?

Would a governments refusal to do that stand up in court?  Can an Order-in-council be challanged in court?

Hmm, could be can of worms.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Anything filed before the date of April 1 2006, falls under the old system, regardless when the descision is made.

dileas

tess


----------



## Springroll

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson said the idea of making a special payment to the families of the four soldiers came to him as he was carrying out the painful task of writing a letter of condolence to the widow of one of the soldiers killed.
> 
> *"I guess it was the death of the first young men that occurred. I was writing a letter of condolence to one of the young widows and I was thinking if this had happened after April 1 she would have had $250,000 tax free to help her start her life over again in addition to the other benefits." *
> 
> "It's one of the things I thought of because in my previous life I used to be a financial planner and I just know to a young family how important that $250,000 would be. It's tax-free. It could make a big difference in terms of paying off a mortgage or buying a home or just securing a future for them and their children. So it's one of the things I felt compelled to do and I am just very pleased that the Prime Minister and my colleagues supported me on it."



The only thing that can come to mind for me is if he knows that it will help out those young widows(and widower's) then why not keep it around for all?? Something just doesn't seem right with this. There is more to this and they are not saying what it is.


----------



## AmmoTech90

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Anything filed before the date of April 1 2006, falls under the old system, regardless when the descision is made.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Tess,

That's true.  Unfortunately they included this point:


> Nor does it cover members of the Canadian Forces who were killed prior to May 13, 2005 -- the date that Parliament approved the new Veterans Charter. The families of the seven soldiers killed in Afghanistan prior to that date, including four soldiers killed by friendly fire in April, 2002, fall under the old regime of monthly benefits.



By doing that they are linking the payments to the new Veteran's Charter.  Like I said, great that those families are getting it, but will they have Orders-in-Council providing a monthly payment to all those who now only recieve the lump sum?  These four families get benefits from both programmes.  It may be petty but I have to ask why the other families not receive the same amount of support?

D

PS- Still need your mailing address to send you that thing...


----------



## DBA

"The disability award is a tax free lump-sum payment of up to $250,000, depending on the extent of your disability. 
The amount of the award is not linked in any way to other payments you may receive under the New Veterans Charter."

Things to keep in mind, the new charter provides for other benefits like job training and income and pension supplements. It is not just a lump sum. The cases in question are getting the old monthly payment plus the new lump sum. The cases from April forward will get the lump sum plus the benefits detailed in the new charter.


----------



## boots

I think it's a nice gesture
*may none of us need to make a SISIP claim...* heh


----------



## The Bread Guy

Now, to add insult to family injury.....

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act_ - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060618/n061839A.html

*Family of Canadian soldier in Afghanistan not getting death benefit after all*
Dean Beeby, Canadian Press, 18 Jun 06

''OTTAWA (CP) - The family of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan won't be getting a generous cash settlement from the government after all.

Media reports last month said relatives of Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, who died in a military vehicle accident in November, would be sharing a $250,000 tax-free payment specially authorized by cabinet to compensate for his death while on duty.

At the time, a family member said the money was welcome and that they "appreciate the thought."

But records released under the Access to Information Act indicate Woodfield's family was excluded from the cabinet order, which gave a total of $1 million to four other families grieving over military deaths.

That order was made on April 6, after Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson persuaded his cabinet colleagues to dole out the cash as "ex gratia" payments - that is, as gifts or favours made out of compassion rather than because of any legal requirement.

The payments were made to the families of soldiers who died between May 13, 2005, and March 31, 2006, a period that placed them in a legal and administrative limbo.

That's because Canada's new Veterans Charter, which for the first time provides a non-taxable $250,000 death benefit, was passed by Parliament on May 13 last year but didn't come into effect until April 1 this year. Deaths that occurred in the interim were not covered by the charter.

Thompson called cabinet's unpublicized decision a "heartwarming" gesture.

*But Woodfield's family will not get a red cent because under the Veterans Charter, only "survivors" can receive the $250,000 death benefit. And because survivors are defined only as dependent children, spouses or common-law partners, Woodfield - as a single man with no children - had no "survivors" to receive any cash.*

Instead, the cabinet order provided the money to the surviving spouses, common-law partners and children of three men killed in Afghanistan, as well as to the two daughters of Warrant Officer Charles Sheppard, who died in a parachuting accident at Trenton, Ont., on Oct. 3, 2005.

"Pte. Woodfield is not eligible because he does not have a survivor or any dependent children," Veterans Affairs spokeswoman Pamela Price confirmed in an interview.

She blamed the confusion on a reporter who "guessed wrong" about who might be eligible for the ex gratia payments.

Woodfield's mother said the Veterans Charter policy should be changed to help the next-of-kin of unattached soliders.

"In a sense, you felt that my son was less of a person, as a single person," Beverley Woodfield of Cow Bay, N.S., said in an interview.

Braun Woodfield, 24, sometimes financially supported his sister Lyndi, buying her a laptop for university, for example, she noted.

The simpler social world of 50 years ago has changed dramatically, and soldiers now may have complex obligations beyond spouses and children, she said.

"I'd like to see a universal entitlement of the benefits, and let the member decide where the benefits should go," said Woodfield.

The death benefit under the Veterans Charter is unsual because of its restriction to so-called "survivors," since single soldiers with no children have long been unconditionally eligible for almost all other death benefits provided by the military.

For example, the Canadian Forces pays for the funerals and burials of all serving members killed on duty, as it did for Woodfield.

National Defence spokesman John Knoll said the Forces also pay supplementary death benefits - two years of salary, tax-free - to the estate of the member or to his or her designated beneficiary. The military will also provide severance pay to the estate or designated beneficiary, seven days' pay for each year of service.

And any pension entitlements that had been accrued by deceased members go to a designated beneficiary or the estate if there is no spouse, common-law partner or children, he said. ''

Confirmation via ATIP of Winnipeg Sun report of 16 May 06: 
''According to official statements, the four soldiers killed in Afghanistan during the specified time period are Pte. Robert Costall (firefight with Taliban, March 28), Master Cpl. Timothy Wilson and Cpl. Paul Davis (traffic accident, March 2) and Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield  (vehicle rollover, Nov. 24).  However, a spokesperson at Veterans Affairs confirmed the first three recipients, but stated Woodfield was not included in the payouts.  Citing privacy considerations, Veterans Affairs would not identify the fourth soldier who qualified for the benefit. No explanation was given as to why Woodfield was exempted, nor could anyone explain why families of soldiers killed on domestic training exercises during that timeframe -- such as Pte. Patrick Dessureault (vehicle rollover, Wainwright, Alta., Sept. 20) -- were not similarly compensated. ''


----------



## Hot Lips

Wow...well I guess I don't know what to think about all of that...
On one hand there has to be limits set as to who, what, where, when and why someone would qualify for these benefits, so that would make sense if the soldier did not meet the criteria...
However, the comment about all soldiers receiving the monies to their estate type thing sounds reasonable too...
I guess you have to have some guidelines...I don't believe these guidelines were put into place to make any soldier any less significant than any other, nevertheless, they are in place...
Perplexing for sure

HL


----------



## GAP

It's simple to solve....the same committee simply amends the original award to go to estates of single soldiers...shouldn't be a big deal, and no black eye for the government if they move on this  fast and treat it  sas a simple oversite.


----------



## geo

while not wanting to belittle the soldier, why is his estate entitled to it?


----------



## Hot Lips

geo said:
			
		

> while not wanting to belittle the soldier, why is his estate entitled to it?


  That's where I am confused...not knowing anything of course about military policy and procedures...but of course that they exist everywhere...this soldier didn't fall into the criteria obviously for these benefits...I guess my thinking is the line has to be drawn somewhere  ???

HL


----------



## GAP

I would imagine that all benefits are "paid" out to an "estate", whether that is a person(s) or a legal entity called the "estate". I stand to be corrected, but legally, I don't think there is any difference.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

This is a special extra ordinary payment intended to relieve the worries and suffering of the family left behind to pay for children's education and to assist in helping the spouse to pay for any extra needs to ensure a easier adjustment to the new life without the member. It is controversial from the start as the benefit system is already in place, it was thought that DVA should assist a little to help out. A single ,member does not have the children or spouse who would be in need. In a nut shell. I think it is nice that they even thought of it.


----------



## geo

As stated above, the special payment is intended for the wife & kids. To ensure that they are well looked after.  While I do not want to specify an amount for what a soldier's LIFE is worth, I am of a belief that the parents & sibblings do not have a particular claim on this payout.

IMHO


----------



## Booked_Spice

I don't know how to answer this so I do not offend anyone.

I agree with Geo and I agree with Hot lips. Some of our fallen soldiers were the main source of income. Now you take that source of income away it doesn't leave much for the family left behind. Two years salary and some of the other Benefits is not alot in to days society if one spouse does not have an education or a career to support the family on their own. Most parents and siblings have their own sources of income to draw on.

Just my opinion..


----------



## The_Pipes

I'm assuming fiancés would not fall under this entitlement. Is this a correct assumption? I recall some of the past fallen members were engaged to be married. Would they be SOL or are considerations made for them?


----------



## exsemjingo

I have no idea what I'm talking about. Please look elsewhere for edifying posts on this topic.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Here it seems we've stumbled into the same kind of ugly situation as life insurance.
> In the civvy world, should a provider with dependants die without insurance, said dependants get squat.
> Also, should a provider die in a way not covered under the policy, the dependants still get nothing.
> 
> Military families cannot be covered under any life insurance policy for death on missions, so the government takes over.  Trouble is, they take over in the same callous way.  Unfortunately, this is another sad, hard lesson in getting all your ducks in a row and reading the fine print.
> 
> Another good question in this vein, though, is why are reservists not covered in the same way as regs when they get killed in action?



What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## KevinB

We still have SDB and SISIP.

This is obviously on top of...  Or did something chnage in the last 8 months


----------



## Michael Dorosh

geo said:
			
		

> As stated above, the special payment is intended for the wife & kids. To ensure that they are well looked after.  While I do not want to specify an amount for what a *soldier's wife is worth*, I am of a belief that the parents & sibblings do not have a particular claim on this payout.



Did you type that, or did Freud?

Come to think of it, maybe it was Elmer Fudd.... ;D


----------



## tomahawk6

I think this is the US side of this coin. It seem's unfair that Pvt Braun as a single soldier is not eligible
for a benfit afforded to married soldiers. I think if there is a death benefit it should apply to all soldiers irregardless of marriage status.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Philpott_070605,00.html


----------



## Michael Dorosh

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think this is the US side of this coin. It seem's unfair that Pvt Braun as a single soldier is not eligible
> for a benfit afforded to married soldiers. I think if there is a death benefit it should apply to all soldiers irregardless of marriage status.
> 
> http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Philpott_070605,00.html



Don't you have to ask yourself what the benefit was originally intended to do, though? That was posted in this thread earlier - it was intended to defray costs borne by survivors such as raising of children, security towards living quarters, things that were diminished by the death of the serviceman. It's not supposed to be a lottery for brothers and sisters.


----------



## Zoomie

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Military families cannot be covered under any life insurance policy for death on missions, so the government takes over.  Trouble is, they take over in the same callous way.



Please ignore the above comments as the poster has obviously never attended a SISIP brief before.  CF members can and do pay into a life insurance plan which fully covers them whilst in theatre.

This extra $250,000 payment is in lieu of SISIP and SDB (yes they still exist Kevin).  This particular payment is from the Department of Veteran Affairs not DND.  It reflects the changes to DVA policies and how the money is distributed.  DVA life long pensions no longer exist, instead we have lump sum cash payments.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

This was a poor cabinet decision.  

Although his family are not "dependents" it could be argued they should be provided with less compassion-based compensation, it is insulting that they were deemed to deserve nothing at all for their loss.....


Matthew.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> DVA life long pensions no longer exist, instead we have lump sum cash payments.



Except those that were awarded a pension before April 1st, 2006, the monthly lifelong payments will continue.

dileas

tess


----------



## paracowboy

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> This was a poor cabinet decision.
> 
> Although his family are not "dependents" it could be argued they should be provided with less compassion-based compensation, it is insulting that they were deemed to deserve nothing at all for their loss.....
> 
> 
> Matthew.


wrong. See Dorosh's post above yours for reasons why.


----------



## 043

Not sure what everyone is up in arms about. Policy is policy. DVA is sorted out and getting more and more sorted out monthly. 15 years ago, it was invisible. Nowadays, that is all people think about when they stub there toes. (read last sentence with a tinge of sarcasm).

All you leaders out there, use this case as a learning tool for your subordinates. If they are single and live in the barracks, they can still purchase SISIP at outstanding prices. I believe they can name anyone they want as beneficiaries.


----------



## geo

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Did you type that, or did Freud?
> 
> Come to think of it, maybe it was Elmer Fudd.... ;D


Typo.... I meant "LIFE" and not WIFE"


----------



## Michael Dorosh

geo said:
			
		

> Typo.... I meant "LIFE" and not WIFE"



Just joshing ya....your intent was clear, just thought it was cute. Who would be brave enough to place a value on their wife, anyway...I mean, in a public forum and all.


----------



## KevinB

Well since they still exist...

Given that SBD is X2 years salary at the current pay rate - and SISIP is an optional $400k (@$28 a month - when I had it)  I am honestly not sure what the argument is.


----------



## paracowboy

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I am honestly not sure what the argument is.


tempest in a teacup


----------



## McG

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Although his family are not "dependents" it could be argued they should be provided with less compassion-based compensation, it is insulting that they were deemed to deserve nothing at all for their loss.....


Is this pitty money for anybody that loves someone killed on operations?  If it is, then lets give it to parents & siblings even if the soldier was married (because thier loss is not reduced because the soldier was married).

However, I don't think this is a benefit to fallen soldiers (as has been suggested above).  I think this is compensation to the people that lived under the roof & ate the food that the soldier provided.  It is for the tution that the soldier will no longer pay towards a child's university.  It is for the family that just had $50k a year ripped out of its pockets.  This the the governments way to say sorry for the income source we just had taken from you.

I'm not against a showing national sympathy for a family that just lost a loved one on military operations, and we can find something more appropriate than cash hand-outs (the lowest of christmas presents) to acknowledge this loss.  It should be seen as insulting where some above have suggests paying the monetary price of a soldier's life; it is priceless.  Leave the money for those families that have lost income.


----------



## vonGarvin

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Well since they still exist...
> 
> Given that SBD is X2 years salary at the current pay rate - and SISIP is an optional $400k (@$28 a month - when I had it)  I am honestly not sure what the argument is.



Must be a slow news day in Ottawa, that's why all the fuss.  The only MP I heard comment on this in the news cast on the radio was from the NDP.  He was quite PC, too, didn't say "wife", "husband" or "spouse" once, just said "partner". 

And you're right, there is no fuss.  The DVA payment is exactly as others have mentioned, to replace lost income due to injury or death.  If it were a lottery ("Son's dead: I win?"), it sure would be a bleak one.  

Having said that, if son (say, a reservist) were living at home with mom and dad and he's KIA AND his supported his parents, well, that's another argument, and one heck of a "what if".


----------



## GerryCan

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Having said that, if son (say, a reservist) were living at home with mom and dad and he's KIA AND his supported his parents, well, that's another argument, and one heck of a "what if".




It's not really a different argument at all. If you live at home still with Mom and Dad and YOU support them, then it's up to you to take out a life insurance policy for them if you want them taken care of financially if and when you die. Oh bleeding hearts, how is this not fair?


----------



## Britney Spears

All this is just silly nanny state busy work. If your life is worth something to someone, insure it. That's what SISIP is for. 

Soldiers going over ARE briefed about this, but sometimes it isn't hammered home with enough force: You have a serious job with serious responsibilities, and you're playing by the Big Boy Rules™. If someone back home is living on your paycheque and you arrive without insurance then you've arrived unprepared and need to sort that shit out right away.


----------



## Booked_Spice

All this is just silly nanny state busy work. If your life is worth something to someone, insure it. That's what SISIP is for. 

Britany, we are not talking about insurance. This is an added Benefit ( lack of a better word) This was put in place for the families and their children to help adjust to the loss of income.

Now in to days day and age even SISIP is not going to help ( some what it will) Like my husband said to me before he left, It is just going to buy a house in Alberta and a little extra. It is not like we can take a million out on our soldiers. The maximum is 400 000 thousand. So many spouses wonder how are they going to support their children with no income coming in. If they do not work or have a good work background, what kind of job can they get. Minimum wage would not support a family. However this added benefit provides some relief for the children's education and necessities of life and give the spouse an education so they can support the family on one income.

You can not put a price on anyones life, However this added bit will help the fallen soldiers families and their kids. So I am all for it.


----------



## GAP

I sounds like the change in policy was not clearly articulated ( or maybe they just didn't forsee this). I agree with the concept, providing EVERYONE knows it, including the public. Things happen, bad things happen, we just don't think they will happen to us.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Britany, we are not talking about insurance. This is an added Benefit ( lack of a better word) This was put in place for the families and their children to help adjust to the loss of income.
> 
> Now in to days day and age even SISIP is not going to help ( some what it will) Like my husband said to me before he left, It is just going to buy a house in Alberta and a little extra. It is not like we can take a million out on our soldiers. The maximum is 400 000 thousand. So many spouses wonder how are they going to support their children with no income coming in. If they do not work or have a good work background, what kind of job can they get. Minimum wage would not support a family. However this added benefit provides some relief for the children's education and necessities of life and give the spouse an education so they can support the family on one income.
> 
> You can not put a price on anyones life, However this added bit will help the fallen soldiers families and their kids. So I am all for it.



Yes, and what you've just described is called insurance. You CAN put a price on anyone's life, that's what insurance companies do. It's not very nice but someone has to do it. $400,000 at 8% is $40,740/year for 20 years. More than enough to keep a family from falling into poverty. Lots of widowers and single parents work for a living. I guess I just can't see that as an undue hardship. The money used to pay for more fringe benefits is money that could have bought better armour, better weapons, better training, anything that could save more lives, which I'm sure you'll appreciate a little better than a cash settlement after a death. We are already the world's best payed military but we fly 60 year old aircraft and all our issued equipment sucks.

Everyone wants more money but there's no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## TMM

+1 Britney.

Employers on Civi Street sometimes offer insurance plans which tend to cover 2-3x salary. In today's world that really isn't a lot. However, there is nothing stoppiing anyone from getting extra insurance. You can buy inexpensive term life for less than what most of us spend at Hortons monthly. As for not being able to support one's family due to death, it's not the government's fault someone is uneducated or unskilled! Plenty of opportunities to learn and earn.


----------



## KevinB

SDB = Supplementary DEATH BENIFIT...

I fail to see how something is being missed between this (SDB - which equally two years pay - paid out immediately [within 48hrs] to the named benefactor) and SISIP.

Uhm -- this is the ARMY - like it or not folks people die!

NCO's should be taking to explain this little fact to their troops - or they should not be in that position.


----------



## Britney Spears

> Employers on Civi Street sometimes offer insurance plans which tend to cover 2-3x salary. In today's wrold that really isn't a lot. However, there is nothing stopiing anyone from getting extra insurance. You can buy inexpensive term life for less than what most of us spend at Hortons monthly. As for not being able to support one's family due to death, it's not the government's fault someone is uneducated or unskilled! Plenty of opportunies to learn and earn.




Well, civvy life insurance wouldn't really help in this case, with the War and Terrorism clause and all that. I think that having SISIP raise their limit a little, to say maybe 600k, might be helpful for those with the need, but I think the adverse selection problem might be a little too much. If you have 6 kids you'll need other financial planning instruments besides insurance anyway. The current coverage is adequate for most people.


----------



## Booked_Spice

I can't disagree with you that our military needs more equipment. But as some members have pointed out to me on this site. You can have the top of the line equipment and yes it will save life's however life's will still be lost no matter what you have.

Yes I agree it is the army and people die. Going into this tour, our family knew what it might cost us and I am not talking financially.I don't expect this money and until I read this post didn't even realize the government was doing this. This is just given by the government and I am not here debating whether the government should or should not. I don't expect anything for free. However this was someones Else's decision and anything extra always helps in the long run for alot of families. Like some posts mentioned previously. But if someone gave you a new car would you take it? Or would you just say no we don't need it? I know not the best example.

Furthermore, I know single moms do it all the time. I was on of those single mom. I know the hardships etc. I can go on an on about the costs for childcare etc. But this is not the place for this. However we have personal finincially planned for the worst case scenerio. I am lucky enough that I can support my familiy on my income alone but some spouses aren't that lucky.

And your you telling me, my life is more value then my husbands because I am covered for more then 400,000. Most insurance companies will insure you for what you want to pay in premiums. The more money you want ( depending on your health of course) the more you pay.SISP ( as far as my knowledge) is the only place that will insure CF personal. You do not have a choice to pay higher premiums for more coverage. Further more this is a plus for Families,so please don't turn it into a negative thing.This post is off topic and I am sorry but sticking to the original post, this is a great thing that has been provided for families for extra security for a loss of income.


----------



## TCBF

"tempest in a teacup"  -  Tea POT.  Tempest in a Tea POT.

" We are already the world's best payed military..."

- Nope.  Look at what a Cdn CWO makes vs an American Command Sgt Major.


----------



## Britney Spears

Okay,

From here

E-9 with 24 years service makes 5097.80 base, which today is 5 687.23235 CAD. CWO 2 base pay according to DND is 6517 CAD.

Looks fairly close to me, taking into acount benefits and such. I may be mistaken but isn't the US GI Bill a bit more generous than what we have?


----------



## camochick

I think what the military provides is adequate. That and the sisip coverage is more than enough if you're smart with it. If you have six kids,its unfortunate but no one made you have that many kids. Do what you can with what you have. I know an awesome woman who raised four on no insurance money when her husband died and she's doing great. 

TMM, we can't get extra coverage because he is at war. If it was that simple do you think we would be so dumb as to not get it. 

As a wise man once told me, Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. If your husband or wife is overseas with the military , then make a plan for the what if's before he or she goes. You should do that anyhow, because death doesnt ask us when we want to go.  >


----------



## TMM

camochick said:
			
		

> TMM, we can't get extra coverage because he is at war. If it was that simple do you think we would be so dumb as to not get it.



I realise that. Is it time for SISP to get with the times and offer the 2x, 3x, 4x life model or even better go up to $1 000 000, which is not unheard of? After all with people living into their 80s it isn't all that much once amortised.


----------



## TCBF

Base Pay charts only tell part of the story.  The whole "pay and benefits package" will differ.  The US CSM here is making 92k USD.  At Graf, he had a car and house provided.  They give what we would call executive level 'perks' to their top end senior NCOs.

'That and the sisip coverage is more than enough if you're smart with it'. 

- I pay for SISIP and SDB.  Monthly.  I want no truck with people who claim they have a right to insurance they have NOT bought.

- Just watch how fast SISIP will try to 'meld' their benefit with the DVA one, so: if you pay for 400k coverage with SISIP, they will try to remove the DVA 250k from the 400k they owe your estate.


----------



## Britney Spears

> I realise that. Is it time for SISP to get with the times and offer the 2x, 3x, 4x life model or even better go up to $1 000 000, which is not unheard of? After all with people living into their 80s it isn't all that much once amortised.



Who on earth would buy such a policy? Life insurance isn't a positive return investment, unless you actually expect to die very soon and haven't told anyone. The point isn't for your family to reap a windfall in the event of your death (don't really want to give them any ideas, now, do we), it's to make it so that the sudden loss of income doesn't completely ruin their lives. You get enough insurance to guard against this possibility.

If you end up making money on a life insurance policy, you've already lost the game.  



> Base Pay charts only tell part of the story.  The whole "pay and benefits package" will differ.  The US CSM here is making 92k USD.  At Graf, he had a car and house provided.  They give what we would call executive level 'perks' to their top end senior NCOs.



Well, I think it's safe to say that on the whole and considering that most of us are Jr. ranks, we (Canadians) are paid quite well compared to our allied peers.


----------



## TMM

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Who on earth would buy such a policy? Life insurance isn't a positive return investment, unless you actually expect to die very soon and haven't told anyone.



Plenty of people buy such policies; it's part of estate planning. That's why the insurance industry offers term, WL, UL and Seg Funds. I don't see why CF personnel should be denied the options.


----------



## TCBF

"Well, I think it's safe to say that on the whole and considering that most of us are Jr. ranks, we (Canadians) are paid quite well compared to our allied peers."

- Agree 100%.

" I don't see why CF personnel should be denied the options."

- We are not denied civ insurance.


----------



## KevinB

TMM said:
			
		

> Plenty of people buy such policies; it's part of estate planning. That's why the insurance industry offers term, WL, UL and Seg Funds. I don't see why CF personnel should be denied the options.



Your NOT as TCBF said -- however most policies (unlike SISIP) will not cover warzone etc stuff.... (go figure - it cuts into their profits)


----------



## TMM

TCBF said:
			
		

> - We are not denied civ insurance.



Now I'm confused because posters in this thread have indicated they cannot get such insurance since SISIP is the only provide who will issue policies to CF active personnel? Enlighten me please.


----------



## Booked_Spice

I personally have such policy. My company pays half the premiums and I pay the other half.

Does this mean I want my husband to profit from my death. No I don't but I want to insure that God forbid something happens to me that my children and my husband are taken care of. Is it more money then they need. Most likely but hey I only pay half of the premium so why not get the most for my buck.


TMM yes cf members can get insurance civi side but most policies will not pay if the death is result of a combat zone. SISIP from the research I have done is the only place that will insure for a very reasonable rate.


----------



## TMM

Thanks luv! I figured it was something like that. My brother in law works for a firm that pays exorbitant premiums when they send people into war zones, declared or not.


----------



## paracowboy

TCBF said:
			
		

> "tempest in a teacup"  -  Tea POT.  Tempest in a Tea POT.


 if you're an American. If you're Canadian, it's teaCUP. If you're a Brit, it's a "Storm" in a teacup.


----------



## KevinB

There are a FEW compaies that will ensure in a cbt zone (my policy thru my company does - althought If I get whacked by a terrorist act out of theatre on leave I dont get shit...).  I'm not sure how it works (my contract specifies the what/where/why etc) - but since they insure contractors - I would guess they should insure soldiers too  :-\

One of the compaines has a $1M policy for their guys - and they are active shooters helping out USSOC


----------



## Britney Spears

> Plenty of people buy such policies; it's part of estate planning. That's why the insurance industry offers term, WL, UL and Seg Funds. I don't see why CF personnel should be denied the options.



We're off on a bit of a tangent here, but there are very, very few estates that would derive any benefit from WL, UL, or Seg funds. the insurance industry offers them and markets them heavily because of their high profit margins, and more money for them means less money for your family. Unless you are either a) heavily in debt and a require protection of your estate from creditors, or b) extremely wealthy and facing a large capital gains tax bill on your estate upon death, I can't see a reason why anyone would purchase them.



> Does this mean I want my husband to profit from my death. No I don't but I want to insure that God forbid something happens to me that my children and my husband are taken care of. Is it more money then they need. Most likely but hey I only pay half of the premium so why not get the most for my buck.



All things being equal, you're not getting the most for your buck. The way to get the most for your buck is to pay just enough to guard against the remote possibility of your premature death, and spend the difference in premium on something that actually benefits you NOW, or investing it yourself and reaping the full return on investment instead of letting the insurance company take a cut. 

It might feel warm and fuzzy to think that your family gets a whole bunch of money if you die, but the simple truth of the matter is that that a) you're probably not going to die any time soon, and b)the insurance company cannot possibly give you more money than you yourself already put in. If either of the above were not true then the insurance company would not be making any money. The purpose of insurance is RISK MANAGEMENT, it is an expense, not an investment.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yup, the only "Freedom 55" they really offer is to themselves.........


----------



## TMM

A touch OT again but those products can indeed help some people, like me and Mr. TMM. Not for everyone but they do serve some solid purposes(sorta like a military career )


----------



## formerarmybrat23

daily gleaner
Published Monday May 28th, 2007 
Appeared on page A1
The family of at least one Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan had to shoulder part of the cost of burying their son last year because the Defence Department's funeral stipend wasn't enough. 

And there appear to be other cases. 

The injustice has prompted the military to ask the federal Treasury Board for a formal increase in the allowance, a request that will be considered this week, The Canadian Press has learned. 

The long-standing limit imposed on funeral expenses for both regular and reserve members of the Forces has not increased for years. 

It wasn't given any consideration until the military learned through the grapevine about the plight of an individual family, which it didn't identify. 

"This was brought to our attention and we immediately looked into it," said Cmdr. Denise Laviolette, a spokeswoman for the Forces. 

"My understanding is that a family was speaking to another individual, who was not from the department and that person passed it along to us." 

Within days of contacting them, she said, the soldier's family had been reimbursed the shortfall between the stipend and the total funeral bill. 

"That was one of the reasons we looked into the overall rate," said Laviolette. "We did not get a formal complaint, but we were certainly made aware that one family had initially paid out of their pockets." 

All serving soldiers, sailors and aircrew are entitled to a funeral at public expense, but there are a series of limits and exceptions. 

While Treasury Board considers the rate increase Thursday, Laviolette said no families will have to make up the difference. 

"In the meantime, we are definitely funding to the actual cost of a funeral," she said in an interview. "We have gone to other monies available until we get the increase." 

The department has been topping up burial costs for at least the last nine months, Laviolette added. 

A number of relatives were reluctant to talk, but at least one other family of a soldier killed last year, contacted by The Canadian Press over the weekend, said it also experienced a shortfall in burial expenses. 

The family has requested reimbursement but hasn't been given a decision. 

"We haven't heard back, unless they put the cheque in the mail yesterday," said a family member.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hansard, House of Commons, 28 May 07
Article link

(....)

National Defence 

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, every member of Parliament in this House supports our troops in Afghanistan. Now the Government of Canada must support our fallen soldiers and their families.  Clearly I want to ask the Prime Minister, will he now inform this House that effective immediately this government will now pay the full costs of the funerals for our Canadian fallen heroes?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, since I have been in office I have directed the department to pay the full funeral costs of fallen soldiers. I also directed the department to review the previous Treasury Board policy set by the Liberals to come to a proper resolution and line it up with current realities.

Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, it is fairly clear that Canadians do not care about bureaucratic submissions to the Treasury Board, as we learned yesterday, asking for more funds. Canadians want funeral cost aid in full right now.  Will the Prime Minister give a personal guarantee—which we have not heard—here and now, that effective immediately, the Government of Canada will pay the full costs of the funerals for our soldiers who have paid the ultimate price? Yes or no?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I will give a better guarantee than that. We have been doing it since I have been in office. Any family that has had to bury one of its loved ones is entitled to full recompense for the funeral.

(....)



*Statement by the Minister of National Defence*
News release NR–07.045, 29 May 07
Article link

OTTAWA— The Honourable Gordon O'Connor, Minister of National Defence, issued the following statement:

“Canada's New Government has been unwavering in our commitment to supporting all members of the Canadian Forces and their families. It is therefore with considerable distress that I note recent media reports regarding families of deceased Canadian Forces members who may not have received full reimbursement for normal funeral and burial expenses. If confirmed, this would indicate that my direction was not followed and I can assure that this will be dealt with accordingly and corrected as soon as possible.

I cannot imagine the pain a family feels after losing a loved one who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

I want to reiterate that any family eligible for support for funeral expenses shall receive the appropriate reimbursement.

I have directed Defence officials to contact military families who lost a loved one, to ensure that these families received all of the support to which they are entitled. It is unfortunate this is required.

Our Government stands behind our service members and their families. We will give them what they need and deserve. The guidelines regarding funeral and burial benefits for CF members put in place in 1999 are being corrected and updated to reflect current realities.”

-30-


----------



## GAP

DND funding came up short for funeral: parents
Updated Wed. May. 30 2007 11:58 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The parents of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan last year came forward on Wednesday, claiming the Canadian Forces has failed to pay the full cost of the funeral for their son.

Lincoln and Laurie Dinning contradicted a claim from Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, who said that the military had paid the full cost of each funeral service for troops killed during his term.

"We stand here telling you today we have not been fully reimbursed for the costs of Matthew's funeral costs," Lincoln said during a Parliament Hill news conference.

He said the funeral for Cpl. Matthew Dinning cost more than $12,000, but the military only contributed $5,600.

The Defence Department says it compensated one family whose funeral expenses outstripped the military's $4,675 burial stipend. And O'Connor told the House of Commons this week that since he became minister in early 2006, he has ensured that the full cost of each funeral has been covered.

Ninety minutes before Dinning family publicly claimed they had been denied their rightful benefits, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and the chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, said the department will cover more expenses linked with military funerals.

"Our support is unconditional," Hillier said. 

"Whatever the challenge -- be it financial or any other challenge -- we will do what has to be done.''

O'Connor said the department is still trying to determine whether any families of the 55 soldiers killed in Afghanistan have not received the money they should have received, O'Connor said.

The Dinning couple say they fit in that category. They told the news conference they still have not been reimbursed the difference between the allowance and the final bill, despite having filed two written requests to National Defence last year.

They said they decided to go public after reading O'Connor's statement that all funerals had been paid for.

"After reading these comments my wife and I were offended and felt that our family's integrity was being called into question by Mr. O'Connor," Lincoln said.

"We stand here today telling you that we have not been fully reimbursed for Matthew's funeral costs, despite the fact Mr. O'Connor stood up in the House of Commons and told the Canadian people the exact opposite."
More on link


----------



## DavidAkin

Dinning just released the three three letters he sent to the military  — on Aug. 25, 2006, on Dec. 1, 2006, and again on April 25, 2007  — and supporting invoices.

The last letter, addressed to Prime Minister Harper, is written almost a year to the day after his son was killed. In it, he notes that while the next of kin of married soldiers are paid a death benefit, the next of kin of single soldiers, like his son, are paid nothing. This, Dinning says, would have helped with the $25,000 in expenses incurred to receive and bury his son.  DND had, by this point, only reimbursed $6,400.

I have posted a PDF of the letters Dinning wrote -- they're worth a read -- back at my blog:
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/5/30/2985375.html


----------



## aesop081

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> , he notes that while the next of kin of married soldiers are paid a death benefit, the next of kin of single soldiers, like his son, are paid nothing.



Wether a CF member is married or not is irelevant. SDB ( suplementary death benefit) is paid to the member's NOK regardless of marital status.


----------



## the 48th regulator

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Wether a CF member is married or not is irelevant. SDB ( suplementary death benefit) is paid to the member's NOK regardless of marital status.



The father's letter states they have received zero, and it is dated April 07, 2007.  Read the letter to the Prime Minister from Mr. Dinning.

dileas

tess


----------



## aesop081

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> The father's letter states they have received zero, and it is dated April 07, 2007.  Read the letter to the Prime Minister from Mr. Dinning.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I'm not disputing the fact that he received zero.  I'm disputing the assertion that no money was shelled out because he was single.


----------



## niner domestic

IIRC, the universal SDB was only paid out to all members (regardless of marital status) as of April 2006.  Fallen members who were single and their NOK prior to that date were not eligible.  

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/06/19/nsbenefits20060619.html


----------



## Spring_bok

Do not confuse the supplementary death benefit with a survivors death benefit.  SDB is an insurance policy that all members contribute to and all members designate a beneficiary regardless of marital status or dependants.  Two very different benefits.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Not to be hard-hearted about this, but I've had a look at the invoices.  The funeral was _very_ large - something within the family's control - and I see bills for grief counselling, attendance at a Police Memorial ceremony and the like - things that surely go beyond "funeral" costs.  Moreover, should not the media's vitriol not be directed at Veteran's Affairs, rather than "the military"?  The two Captains to whom the original reimbursement requests were made are hardly in a position to influence VAC policy in this regard.

SDB Regulations:



> Canadian Forces Superannuation Regulations - Part II
> CANADIAN FORCES SUPPLEMENTARY DEATH BENEFITS
> Designation of Beneficiaries
> 54. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a participant may, for the purposes of Part II of the Act, name a beneficiary under Part II of the Act or substitute a new named beneficiary or cancel the naming of any beneficiary.
> 
> (2) The naming of a beneficiary or the substitution or cancellation of a named beneficiary by a participant referred to in subsection (1) shall be evidenced in writing in a form prescribed by the Minister, dated, witnessed and forwarded to the Minister.
> 
> (3) The naming of a beneficiary or the substitution or cancellation of a named beneficiary by a participant referred to in subsection (1) shall be effective on the date the participant executes the form referred to in subsection (2) if the completed form is received by the Minister prior to the death of the participant.
> 
> (4) For the purposes of Part II of the Act, a beneficiary may be
> 
> (a) the participant’s estate;
> 
> (b) *any person over the age of 18 years on the date of the naming*;
> 
> (c) any charitable organization or institution;
> 
> (d) any benevolent organization or institution; or
> 
> (e) any eleemosynary religious or educational organization or institution.



Finally, once again I find myself aghast at our Minister's simpering, vacillating performance throughout this discussion.


----------



## aesop081

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> Do not confuse the *supplementary death benefit * with a survivors death benefit.  SDB is an insurance policy that all members contribute to and all members designate a beneficiary regardless of marital status or dependants.  Two very different benefits.



This is true...however, since all members get SDB, the marital status of the member is irrelevant.  I have been filling out SDB forms since i joined and i was single then, they should have received SDB.....at an equivalent of 2 year's pay (IIRC), it hardly constitutes as "nothing"


----------



## Spring_bok

My point exactly.  Canada pension is no different, there is no survivors benefit paid if there is no surviving dependants.  Thats why they call it survivors benefits.


----------



## aesop081

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> My point exactly.  Canada pension is no different, there is no survivors benefit paid if there is no surviving dependants.  Thats why they call it survivors benefits.



Agreed.

The family was hardly left with bills they couldnt pay, As they are entitled to Sup death Benefit.  As well, i dont think its too far of a stretch to think that the member had SISIP insurance either prior to, or as part of his pre-deployement admin.

In my case, for example :

SISP = $300 000
Sup death benefit : $120 000

Total : $420 000

No amount of money can replace a loved one or ease the pain of that loss.  My point is simply that the system is there so that they were not burdenned by funeral costs. They were not left with bills they could not pay......at least thats the way it should have been.


----------



## GAP

niner domestic said:
			
		

> IIRC, the universal SDB was only paid out to all members (regardless of marital status) as of April 2006.  Fallen members who were single and their NOK prior to that date were not eligible.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/06/19/nsbenefits20060619.html



Was there not an announcement to the effect that they (government) would backdate those payments or was that for injuries only?

Who was listed as his NOK?

I wasn't there, don't know everything involved, but have gone through 2 funerals within the last 8 years, and they did not come anywhere near $25,000. Was there, other than a large crowd, any other special consideration that caused it to cost so much?

These are the first questions that came to mind. Before everyone starts stomping all over me for asking them, I do NOT presume to pass judgement on anyone, I am simply asking because I don't know. 

In any respect, DND should pay it and be done with it. It is a pittance for a life well served. 

The bad PR for DND has probably cost them 4 times this cost, so which was the more cost effective strategy?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Not to be hard-hearted about this, but I've had a look at the invoices.  The funeral was _very_ large - something within the family's control - and I see bills for grief counselling, attendance at a Police Memorial ceremony and the like - things that surely go beyond "funeral" costs.  Moreover, should not the media's vitriol not be directed at Veteran's Affairs, rather than "the military"?  The two Captains to whom the original reimbursement requests were made are hardly in a position to influence VAC policy in this regard.
> 
> SDB Regulations:
> 
> Finally, once again I find myself aghast at our Minister's simpering, vacillating performance throughout this discussion.



Should the chain of command not have a liaison officer to ensure the family members are cared for?  Much in the same way that an injured member has.

I Believe he was right in asking for help from the Military members, and they can guide him in the right direction.  It behooves the member's Unit to do so in my opinion.

Leaving the parents to seek all of this on their own, which I am sure none were ever prepared for, is just plain callous.  They have been cast aside, along with the soil that covers their loved one.

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

48th - re-read my last.  My comments were directed at the media, not the family.  The role of an Assisting Officer is to do just that - assist.  However, I would suggest that few officers are adequately placed to pass judgement on whether or not grief counselling should be compensated for.  There has to be a cut-off point. 

 It's hardly callous.  I can cite several instances where the CF has gone well beyond what even the most critical observer would demand.  They've hardly been "cast aside". :


----------



## George Wallace

Let's get realistic for a moment.  The Government, no matter whether it is for a soldier or a Civil Servant, is going pay out an "Average Sum" in all cases.  If, as mentioned by Teddy in his post on the first page, the family is going to go about this and use the most extravagant and expensive means to carry out the funeral, the question should be asked if we the Tax Payers should pay?  Or should there be a set fee for all.....even across the board.  Should other factors, other than the funeral be included in this fee?

Actually, this enrages me.  I don't know all the facts, but if someone wants to claim twice or three times the fees that others are paying for a funeral, I am beginning to smell a rat.  Cold?  Perhaps.  I am sure the Press will not clean up, nor clear up, this story by providing all the facts.  It is sensationalism and designed to discredit the Government and DND, even if it is not within their realm of responsibility, but that of DVA and SISIP or other organizations who are charging to support the Troops.

Until all the facts are presented "publicly", we will never know.  We can't trust the National Enquirer Press to provide us with the real facts.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

I should probably stay out of this but...ah well here goes.
I agree with Teddy Ruxpin.....there are limits...they need to be re-visited and updated maybe... expectations should be managed from the get go by the AO, the Padre and the Unit involved. Making statements like "whatever it takes" can come back to haunt you in the end...as the Treasury Board does not recognise that parameter in their regulations.

I have been involved with these procedures for over 20 years...in the military and the civiilian sector. I was very surprised at the time of the Dinning funeral that the family had chosen such a huge venue and I thought to myself that this was going to cost someone a lot of money. 

My advice to families when I am the advising and/or officiating clergy is to keep things simple. Obits in the paper are very expensive and the more papers you publish in the more expense....caskets ($1500 in this case) are extremely expensive and the Funeral directors always try to upsell.....saying things like..."wouldn't you want your loved one to have the best?" at the time of my father's funeral they were very upset with me when I totld them I wanted a pine box as we were draping the casket with a funeral pall and burning the box after the funeral anyway. they missed an opportunity to upsell. Churches are the best value for money when it comes to venue for the service...the most any church would take as a donation would be 10 per cent of what that arena cost.

again manage expectations.....if there is a limit to seating then you need to make arrangements for overflow or let folks know that seating will be limited and then make sure reserved seating is available for those you really want to be there....the Unit can do that for you...as with most things.

My heart goes out to anyone who is grieving and I've certainly had to provide lots of these services in the past...grief can sometimes produce unrealistic expectations of others...is this the case here?


----------



## DavidAkin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Until all the facts are presented "publicly", we will never know.  We can't trust the National Enquirer Press to provide us with the real facts.



C'mon, George -- gimme a break. There's lot of stories about military and foreign affairs where reporters expect to get dished for spinning but on this one?  We carried Dinning's press conference live and uninterrupted and we've published the letters he wrote in their entirety with the invoices he submitted. 

I'll go find him and report 'em if you tell me what "real facts" we're missing here ...


----------



## westernarmymember

It's not often I wade into a discussion but this one has really captured my interest. One point to remember in all this is that the funeral allowance is not set by DND, it is set by Treasury Board. Should costs associated with the death of a hero be unlimited? I'm on the fence.


----------



## armyvern

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> My point exactly.  Canada pension is no different, there is no survivors benefit paid if there is no surviving dependants.  Thats why they call it survivors benefits.



Excellent post Spring_bok,

Sadly, this is a very frustrating situation, due to the situation.

Survivors Benefits are indeed a VAC responsibilty vice a CF responsibility, and are payable to the spouse and/or common law spouse and/or children of the member. I have attached the link below. One will also note from their site, that grief counselling for familes is also a part of the VAC mandate vice the CF mandate. Sadly, in the end, I think it will be borne out that the CF is prohibited by the Financial Administration Act and Treasury Board from paying invoices for items that do not fall within our Departments jurisdiction. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor is quite right when he states the DND/CF has paid for every bill it has received for funerals. I'd assume that the bills that were not DND jurisdiction to re-imburse for, were forwarded to the appropriate Department of VAC for payment.

Click on VAC "Death Benefit**" under 'Other Benefits'

The Death Benefit, according to DVA: "For 2007, the maximum Death Benefit is $255,729.25. It is adjusted annually based on the cost-of-living index."

Post edited to change hyper-link name:

**"Death Benefit" more commonly referred to as the "Survivors Death Benefit" which is _what_ causes the confusion. The Death Benefit is commonly called the Survivors Benefit because it is paid only to the surviving spouse/child(ren) of the deceased member. The fact that this is not payable to parents is again making the news as well. 

Death (aka Survivor) Benefit is paid by Veterans Affairs and is NOT

1)  the SDB (this is the Supplementary Death Benefit) equalling 2 years of the members pay and is paid to whomever the member desigantes as his NOK. The family in this case, would have recieved this benefit; and

2)  SISIP Benefits...paid to the designated beneficiary if the member had this coverage. 

SISIP Site


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> C'mon, George -- gimme a break. There's lot of stories about military and foreign affairs where reporters expect to get dished for spinning but on this one?  We carried Dinning's press conference live and uninterrupted and we've published the letters he wrote in their entirety with the invoices he submitted.
> 
> I'll go find him and report 'em if you tell me what "real facts" we're missing here ...



David i agree with you that was unnecessary media bashing and uncalled for in my opinion. I thank you for providing the letters and the links at your blog, I read them with great interest. I think the point might be taken that the family seems intent on embarrassing the Government. I understand that they felt that their integrity was being questioned and so perhaps it is understandable that they have gone public.
I still wonder if expectations were managed properly at the time and whether advice was given by AOs that was disregarded by the family? I can only make recommendations when providing service and then politely acquiesce to their wishes....unless it's clearly against the theology or practice of my church in which case we have to come up with another solution...


----------



## George Wallace

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> C'mon, George -- gimme a break. There's lot of stories about military and foreign affairs where reporters expect to get dished for spinning but on this one?  We carried Dinning's press conference live and uninterrupted and we've published the letters he wrote in their entirety with the invoices he submitted.
> 
> I'll go find him and report 'em if you tell me what "real facts" we're missing here ...



I'm not going to get into a "Bun Fight" with you David, but as you can see, the blame has been place firmly on DND and the Minister, while other Agencies are being overlooked.  There is the member's SDB, Insurance policy and SISIP administered for DND by an outside agency, an Insurance Company.  There are benefits that should be claimed through DVA, and not DND, that should be clarified.   There are regulations and restrictions on claims as laid out be Treasury Board.  Many factors that are being ignored in slamming DND and the Minister.  

I am not defending DND, nor the Minister, but all the fault/blame does not rest on them.  Will the Press sort it all out in the next few days, or will it be relegated to a two paragraph blurb on the inside corner of page 26 in some obscure paper in the Northwest Territories?  We can hope that things will be clarified and benefit the rest of us, but will it really happen?

Just catching the News right now, and the "S*%@" is rolling downhill, and the CDS was first to be hit by it.

And I must point out and apologize for the fact that I have not yet had the time to visit David's blog and update myself on what he has presented there.


----------



## armyvern

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> **"Death Benefit" more commonly referred to as the "Survivors Death Benefit" which is _what_ causes the confusion. The Death Benefit is commonly called the Survivors Benefit because it is paid only to the surviving spouse/child(ren) of the deceased member. *The fact that this is not payable to parents is again making the news as well. *



I feel the need to expand on the issue of parents of single soldiers not receiving this benefit as it is again being brought into the spotlight.

Reproduced under the Fairdealings provision of the Copyright Act:

From the Globe & Mail:



> Letters to Ottawa unanswered, Dinnings say
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> Globe and Mail Update with Canadian Press
> May 30, 2007 at 1:05 PM EDT
> 
> ...
> 
> Mr. Dinning has also written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to ask why the families of married soldiers receive a $250,000 death benefit and the families of unmarried soldiers get nothing.
> 
> ...



This refers to the VAC "Death Benefit." 

My heart absolutely aches for the Dinnings and for the great loss which they have suffered. This can not be easy for them. But each time I see this issue raised, I think to myself "Yes, it is unfair but..."

If this benefit were paid to the parents of a single member, would that then be fair to the members who were married and/or had dependant children? 

Would those married members then get a higher benefit as those children's future still needs to be provided for? Their future education still needs to be provided for. 

Would it be fair for the 2 parents of a single member to receive this 250K? Would it really be fair if fallen members with a spouse and 2 or 3 or 4 children who have now forever lost that spouses income get the same amount towards their future support?

And if the parents of a single member get it...is it really fair NOT to give it to the parents of a married member too? Are a married members parents any less deserving of it upon their soldier-childs death than that single members parents?

Do we take the 250K and divy it equally up amongst them all on a per person basis? Each parent of every fallen soldier getting the same amount as a soldier's child? Somehow that doesn't seem quite fair to me either.

This is a vicious circle. There simply needs to be a cutoff somewhere, and I agree with that cutoff being where it is now. This 250K is intended to ensure that a deceased soldiers spouse and/or children can financially survive above the subsistence level after the members death and it is they who should, first and foremost, who should be afforded the opportunity to do so with payment of this benefit.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 48th - re-read my last.  My comments were directed at the media, not the family.  The role of an Assisting Officer is to do just that - assist.  However, I would suggest that few officers are adequately placed to pass judgement on whether or not grief counselling should be compensated for.  There has to be a cut-off point.
> 
> It's hardly callous.  I can cite several instances where the CF has gone well beyond what even the most critical observer would demand.  They've hardly been "cast aside". :



Teddy,

My sharp tongue was for DND, sorry if I used your quote, which appears I was aiming my anger at you.  A few officer are adequately placed?  I hope so, are you then suggesting there is more to this story than meets the eye?  I would not want anyone here to jeopardize their position on the site vis a vis their superiors for speaking out of line.  A  cut off point must be reached?  So you basically say once the member has died, cut them off after we have buried them and paid for the funeral, albeit only partly, as we have discovered before the Dinning family came forward.

I am glad that the CF has gone well beyond what even the most critical observer would demand on several instances, but you should be saying every instance.  As we are called on to do that in theatre, facing an enemy, every time.



			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I should probably stay out of this but...ah well here goes.
> I agree with Teddy Ruxpin.....there are limits...they need to be re-visited and updated maybe... expectations should be managed from the get go by the AO, the Padre and the Unit involved. Making statements like "whatever it takes" can come back to haunt you in the end...as the Treasury Board does not recognise that parameter in their regulations.
> 
> I have been involved with these procedures for over 20 years...in the military and the civiilian sector. I was very surprised at the time of the Dinning funeral that the family had chosen such a huge venue and I thought to myself that this was going to cost someone a lot of money.
> 
> My advice to families when I am the advising and/or officiating clergy is to keep things simple. Obits in the paper are very expensive and the more papers you publish in the more expense....caskets ($1500 in this case) are extremely expensive and the Funeral directors always try to upsell.....saying things like..."wouldn't you want your loved one to have the best?" at the time of my father's funeral they were very upset with me when I told them I wanted a pine box as we were draping the casket with a funeral pall and burning the box after the funeral anyway. they missed an opportunity to up sell. Churches are the best value for money when it comes to venue for the service...the most any church would take as a donation would be 10 per cent of what that arena cost.
> 
> again manage expectations.....if there is a limit to seating then you need to make arrangements for overflow or let folks know that seating will be limited and then make sure reserved seating is available for those you really want to be there....the Unit can do that for you...as with most things.
> 
> My heart goes out to anyone who is grieving and I've certainly had to provide lots of these services in the past...grief can sometimes produce unrealistic expectations of others...is this the case here?





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's get realistic for a moment.  The Government, no matter whether it is for a soldier or a Civil Servant, is going pay out an "Average Sum" in all cases.  If, as mentioned by Teddy in his post on the first page, the family is going to go about this and use the most extravagant and expensive means to carry out the funeral, the question should be asked if we the Tax Payers should pay?  Or should there be a set fee for all.....even across the board.  Should other factors, other than the funeral be included in this fee?
> 
> Actually, this enrages me.  I don't know all the facts, but if someone wants to claim twice or three times the fees that others are paying for a funeral, I am beginning to smell a rat.  Cold?  Perhaps.  I am sure the Press will not clean up, nor clear up, this story by providing all the facts.  It is sensationalism and designed to discredit the Government and DND, even if it is not within their realm of responsibility, but that of DVA and SISIP or other organizations who are charging to support the Troops.
> 
> Until all the facts are presented "publicly", we will never know.  We can't trust the National Enquirer Press to provide us with the real facts.



So I will sum this up with as little words as possible.  Are you both stating there were offers from the military to help advise the Dinnings, yet they refused and went the extravagant route?  If that is the case, and you know that for a fact, then we better have that stated here.

If not, as far as I am concerned, had that been my son I would have had a grand funeral pyre on Parliament hill with his regiment present to honour the great warrior he was for our nation.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get into a "Bun Fight" with you David, but as you can see, the blame has been place firmly on DND and the Minister, while other Agencies are being overlooked.  There is the member's SDB, Insurance policy and SISIP administered for DND by an outside agency, an Insurance Company.  There are benefits that should be claimed through DVA, and not DND, that should be clarified.   There are regulations and restrictions on claims as laid out be Treasury Board.  Many factors that are being ignored in slamming DND and the Minister.



Again, I ask you, was there someone from DND advising the family of the correct routes?  Why are we creating barriers ourselves?  It still lies on the responsibility of DND, to work with DVA and the insurance company they chose ( through a bid process no doubt....) and help these families get the advice and the help they need?



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I feel the need to expand on the issue of parents of single soldiers not receiving this benefit as it is again being brought into the spotlight.
> 
> Reproduced under the Fairdealings provision of the Copyright Act:
> 
> From the Globe & Mail:
> 
> This refers to the VAC "Death Benefit."
> 
> My heart absolutely aches for the Dinnings and for the great loss which they have suffered. This can not be easy for them. But each time I see this issue raised, I think to myself "Yes, it is unfair but..."
> 
> If this benefit were paid to the parents of a single member, would that then be fair to the members who were married and/or had dependant children?
> 
> Would those married members then get a higher benefit as those children's future still needs to be provided for? Their future education still needs to be provided for.
> 
> Would it be fair for the 2 parents of a single member to receive this 250K? Would it really be fair if fallen members with a spouse and 2 or 3 or 4 children who have now forever lost that spouses income get the same amount towards their future support?
> 
> And if the parents of a single member get it...is it really fair NOT to give it to the parents of a married member too? Are a married members parents any less deserving of it upon their soldier-childs death than that single members parents?
> 
> Do we take the 250K and divy it equally up amongst them all on a per person basis? Each parent of every fallen soldier getting the same amount as a soldier's child? Somehow that doesn't seem quite fair to me either.
> 
> This is a vicious circle. There simply needs to be a cutoff somewhere, and I agree with that cutoff being where it is now. This 250K is intended to ensure that a deceased soldiers spouse and/or children can financially survive above the subsistence level after the members death and it is they who should, first and foremost, who should be afforded the opportunity to do so with payment of this benefit.



Nice, so as soon as he is dumped on our soil, DND backs away?  Did Dinning live at Home?  Was he supporting his family in the sense of paying for his expenses?  Did he state on his Will they were his NOK?

These are questions that need to be answered, otherwise I agree with all of you.  My arguments, and statements will then be moot.

However let us not waste time, and cut to the chase. Is this a case of the Dinnings trying to profit from the death of their son, or a Government not organized enough to care for their soldiers dead or alive?

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Nice, so as soon as he is dumped on our soil, DND backs away?  Did Dinning live at Home?  Was he supporting his family in the sense of paying for his expenses?  Did he state on his Will they were his NOK?
> 
> These are questions that need to be answered, otherwise I agree with all of you.  My arguments, and statements will then be moot.
> 
> However let us not waste time, and cut to the chase. Is this a case of the Dinnings trying to profit from the death of their son, or a Government not organized enough to care for their soldiers dead or alive?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Tess, 

Come on. No-one's said anything like that at all. We are saying that the dog-pile on the MND and the CDS is not appropriate, they can say all they wish to the Minister of Veterans Affairs...but they can NOT make another Government department do the job for which it is responsible.

The MND and the CDS have zero authority outside of their own Department.

I've read the letters from the Dinnings, they mention the Department of Veterans Affairs as the overseers in those very letters. Why then is the Minister of that Department not the one being asked to answer for what has so errenously occured to the Dinning's. It was that Departments job, and obviously the Dinnings are aware of that as they say so in their letters?

Watch the news. Someone obviously referred the Dinnings to DVA (I suspect their assisting Os did this) but the DVA...hasn't paid...why are the MND, CDS, and Military being blamed for it while not a question is asked of those who should actually be accountable to answer in this case??

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=department/message/ministercorner


----------



## the 48th regulator

So then the question is that the Parents, or some politcal group using them, is trying to take advantage of the government?  There is actually an ulterior motive behind the Dinnings quest, whether orchestrated by them or not.  Is that what you are saying?

Ministers can put pressure on each other, you can take that to the bank.  And if this causes the Minister of defence to kick the Minister of Veteran affairs in the aise, then it worked, wouldn't you agree?


Furthermore, as I said earlier, it would only benefit the DND to work together with the DVA, as opposed to just referring us to another sector of Government.

The DVA is only as of April posted for an OMBUDSMAN, no check and balance.  However the DND has finally gotten their poop together to care for our living and healthy troops, about time they took care of the injured and dead.

dileas

tess


----------



## Wookilar

As Matt was a budd of mine, I've been holding my tongue. I do not know the parents at all and I do not want to disrespect them in any way.

However, this "story" is nothing but political spin. The media, the family, and the politicians have picked their targets carefully and intentionally.

Mr Akin, respectfully sir, get your head out of your rear orifice. I just watched Craig Oliver's bit, the vitriol and misdirection were very plain and apparent. No mention of DVA, no mention of TB guidelines, no mention of the vagaries of DND/CF policy regarding death benefits and who pays what. You have the proper information, how about you give it to Mr Oliver and we see a "clarification" on the national news tomorrow night? Not going to happen is it?

The politicians are all over the MND, and the press is along for the ride, because he is in a tough spot and there is very little else out there they can attack the PM on (at this time) that catches headlines. He is a relatively "junior" politician and they are trying to get him to spin.

As for the family, I do not know what they are looking for. It can't be money, that should come from DVA, not DND, and they appear to be aware of that. But, the MND and the CDS appear to be their target. I do not know the pain they are going through, I can't even imagine what it must be like. But, I don't think intentionally making a fool out of the organization that Matt was a part of will get them to where they want to be.

Wook


----------



## armyvern

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> So then the question is that the Parents, or some politcal group using them, is trying to take advantage of the government?  There is actually an ulterior motive behind the Dinnings quest, whether orchestrated by them or not.  Is that what you are saying?



WTF?? I've said nor insinuated NO such thing. Why isn't the media and the opposition jumping all over those who had the authority to make these payments occur for the Dinnings? My guess is that the opposition feels that the MND is seen by all to be "weak" thus a Conservative soft spot. The opposition knows full well which Government Department should be being taken to task here...and so does the media. It's in the Dinning's very own letters for crying out loud.

My personal opinion on this matter has NOTHING at all to do with the Dinning family, but with the decidly left-slanted reporting which is occuring in aiding the opposition in attacking "the weaker" (from TV this evening) Minister instead of the one who should be answering.

Either way, it's still the ruling governments mess to sort out, but the opposition and media are playing it to hit "the weaker" minister.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Ministers can put pressure on each other, you can take that to the bank.  And if this causes the Minister of defence to kick the Minister of Veteran affairs in the aise, then it worked, wouldn't you agree?



Yes you can drag a horse to water...but you can't make it drink. Unfortunately, most CF members have an opinion of DVA that is not the nicest; and it seems to me, if one were to search this very web-site, one would find a great many examples of dealing with DVA...and how you just spun around by them over and over again....thus the very reason the Omsbudsman is being brought into that Department in the first place. 



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Furthermore, as I said earlier, it would only benefit the DND to work together with the DVA, as opposed to just referring us to another sector of Government.
> 
> The DVA is only as of April posted for an OMBUDSMAN, no check and balance.  However the DND has finally gotten their poop together to care for our living and healthy troops, about time they took care of the injured and dead.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



It certainly would be better and no one here has ever said it wouldn't be, but would it also not be better to be asking the hard questions to those responsible and accountable (DVA) for those items in the Dinnings case? Perhaps, the MND could have kicked the MDVA a bit harder, but that does zero to negate that Ministers and that Department from their accountibility in this case.


----------



## Hunteroffortune

I'm not in the military, but I support them as much as I can. No parent should have to outlive their children, but this is happening, so, the limits should be raised for funeral expenses. Here's the but....

Why did the Dinnings get charged $3,000 for the hall? If the community wanted to show their support, the least they could have done was wave any hall fees. 

Next, why didn't the community get together and provide sandwiches and refreshments for free, I'm sure any community would have felt they were contributing more by providing the lunch, they would have felt they were doing more to help the family.

I am sorry that the Dinning family has had such problems, but they are letting the Liberals and media use them, I remember watching the funeral for Cpl Dinning, and I remember being astounded that the father made it so political. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060416/afghanistan_template_060416?s_name=&no_ads=%3E.

_Those at the service got to watch Dinning's life unfold on a giant video screen as his father Lincoln showed home movies of Matt singing O Canada as a young boy, appearing as Robin Hood in a school play and speaking at a wedding.

"Now I'd like to show you some of the video that Mr. Harper wouldn't let you see close up of Matthew's arrival home,'' said Lincoln. He then showed some home video of Matt's remains returning to CFB Trenton on Tuesday._

I understand that the Dinnings are bitter, but their Liberal MP did them a disservice by making them come to Ottawa, they have become political tools. 

This whole issue is not about our soldiers, it's about the Liberals trying to make political points on the backs of soldiers families who have suffered the ultimate price. Both the Liberals and the media should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## teddybear

When my husband was killed, my AO told me what expenses were covered and which were not. It was my choice to add and/or upgrade certain things. I was clearly informed that I would be responsible for those expenses incurred outside the military's budget. I chose to give my husband a military funeral and burial at Beechwood. 99% of the expenses were covered except the casket upgrade. 
I understand that a civilian funeral and burial are more expensive, however, should one soldier be entitled to more than the other? Maybe the budget should be increased but there has to be a limit on what we can expect them to pay. Should you chose to upgrade, you chose the expense also. 
As for the Sudden Death Benefit, yes that goes to the soldier's dependents. Most single soldiers are not supporting their parents. There is no financial loss to the parents when they die. However, in my case, my husband was the sole provider for our family. And I have 2 little girls that I have to raise for a long time on my own. The parents would have recieved 2 years salary plus his SISIP. The sudden death benefit was not in place when Matt died.


----------



## GAP

Well, that sure takes a lot of the speculation out of what people are told and what they are not.....


----------



## armyvern

Teddybear,

Thanks again for a wonderful and clarifying post. Your spirit is amazing.

Veronica


----------



## teddybear

The guy that called me from The Center today said that most families were quite satisfied with the financial support received from the military and that most were upset at today's turn of events. I, for one, would not want anyone to assume that I am not satisfied with the treatment that my family has received. The military has gone above and beyond the call of duty IMHO.


----------



## the 48th regulator

TeddyBear,

You have answered the questions I have asked.  God bless you and you family.

dileas

tess


----------



## teddybear

No prob. Glad to help out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Teddybear,
Thank you,......and please, kiss your girls in the morn and tell them that a total stranger wishes them the best this mortal coil has to offer them.

I'm extremely humbled by your strength.


----------



## teddybear

Thank you Bruce. I am humbled by the support that I have received from friends, soldiers and total strangers. The only thing I could ask for is my husband back. Not going to happen but respect for his decision to serve and sacrifice is close enough. 

Thank you all. 

Charmaine


----------



## Scoobs

I recently completed an SI for a mbr that had passed away in Canada.   A military funeral was provided for him and the sad fact is that DND, not Veterans Affairs, does not cover in complete basic things like Funeral Director's costs, etc.  There are specific items that have no limit, but there are others that do.  The reality is that the items that have limits are out of touch with today's rates.  When we checked into this (two service mbrs passed away in the same incident), we were informed that the rates were under review.  My colleague and I found it interesting that this has become such a hot topic since we recommended in our report that the rates be brought in line with today's rates.  Believe me, the funerals were not extravagant by any means and the money that DND provides is simply not enough.  In the end, DND antied up and are covering the difference from what the published rates are and what the families' actual costs were.  However, it was very embarrassing for the Assisting Os.


----------



## FSTO

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> C'mon, George -- gimme a break. There's lot of stories about military and foreign affairs where reporters expect to get dished for spinning but on this one?  We carried Dinning's press conference live and uninterrupted and we've published the letters he wrote in their entirety with the invoices he submitted.



David, maybe you should have a read of this:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/212-02_e.asp

There is no discrimination between married or unmarried service personnel and you can give your benefits to charity, your parents, or a person over the age of 18.
I do not know where the Dinnings are getting their information but their son would have named someone as his SDB beneficary.
I also fault DND and DVA for not pointing this out to the press, but I also wonder where his benefits have gone because they are somewhere within the system.


----------



## Emenince Grise

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I should probably stay out of this but...ah well here goes.
> I agree with Teddy Ruxpin.....there are limits...they need to be re-visited and updated maybe... expectations should be managed from the get go by the AO, the Padre and the Unit involved. Making statements like "whatever it takes" can come back to haunt you in the end...as the Treasury Board does not recognise that parameter in their regulations.
> 
> I have been involved with these procedures for over 20 years...in the military and the civiilian sector. I was very surprised at the time of the Dinning funeral that the family had chosen such a huge venue and I thought to myself that this was going to cost someone a lot of money.
> 
> My advice to families when I am the advising and/or officiating clergy is to keep things simple. Obits in the paper are very expensive and the more papers you publish in the more expense....caskets ($1500 in this case) are extremely expensive and the Funeral directors always try to upsell.....saying things like..."wouldn't you want your loved one to have the best?" at the time of my father's funeral they were very upset with me when I totld them I wanted a pine box as we were draping the casket with a funeral pall and burning the box after the funeral anyway. they missed an opportunity to upsell. Churches are the best value for money when it comes to venue for the service...the most any church would take as a donation would be 10 per cent of what that arena cost.
> 
> again manage expectations.....if there is a limit to seating then you need to make arrangements for overflow or let folks know that seating will be limited and then make sure reserved seating is available for those you really want to be there....the Unit can do that for you...as with most things.
> 
> My heart goes out to anyone who is grieving and I've certainly had to provide lots of these services in the past...grief can sometimes produce unrealistic expectations of others...is this the case here?



This is helpful. Though I have not been involved in a military funeral, I have been officiating at civilian funerals for 28 years. I've buried political and entertainment luminaries, as well as the town drunk. In the end, we're all the same. Eath to earth and all that. 

The question of a military funeral has come up in discussions with the funeral profession in my community. We have had one public memorial service here, but I was not involved. In that case, the Legion branch offered their auditorium, which seats several hundred. It was full. 

I endorse the use of a church for a funeral. In our case, (and we are one of the largest churches in the city) we could handle seating for 600+.  There would be no cost other than for our staff (organist, sound tech and caretaker in our case). I would also offer to arrange for Rogers Television to do a closed circuit broadcast of the funeral (with family consent) to a secondary venue to handle overflow (with a secure line feed to avoid the media tapping the feed to record the service, as happened once to my father at a police funeral).

In talking with funeral professionals, the good ones would see this as an opportunity to showcase their skills, not as an opportunity to gouge the family. I also agree with the "keep things simple" and "manage expectations" advice. A short obit, run once in the local paper is sufficient. The media will get the word out. You would be amazed at how efficient word of mouth is, too. 

The biggest costs in a funeral is the casket (there is a huge markup on these) and the "professional service", which means people. Runng a large funeral requires a lot of people to direct people to seats, accept donations, attend to the family needs and so on. We held the funeral of a Great Lakes ship owner this winter, with full maritime traditions, and yes, the church was full. There were six staff from the funeral home for that one, and they were all needed. 

In short, let the padre the the AO do their thing. They have usually done it before and can make it happen for the family.


----------



## armyvern

FSTO said:
			
		

> David, maybe you should have a read of this:
> 
> http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/212-02_e.asp
> 
> There is no discrimination between married or unmarried service personnel and you can give your benefits to charity, your parents, or a person over the age of 18.
> I do not know where the Dinnings are getting their information but their son would have named someone as his SDB beneficary.
> I also fault DND and DVA for not pointing this out to the press, but I also wonder where his benefits have gone because they are somewhere within the system.



FTSO,

The Dinnings would indeed have received the SDB (2 years of members pay), if their son designated one of them as the beneficiary. I would suspect that he did, and that they, in fact, have already received that payment benefit. The Dinnings have _never_ once stated that they _did not receive _ the SDB (Supplementary Death Benefit).

They have stated however that they did not receive the VAC Death Benefit, of 250K, which they are referring to as the "Survivors Benefit." They did not receive this benefit as they are not entitled to it as per current VAC regulations which limit it's payment to deceased members with spouse and/or children.

The two benefits are NOT the same thing, and I say again, not once have the Dinnings said that they did not receive the SDB to which they were entitled (if named as beneficiary).

See here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/62719/post-572745.html#msg572745


----------



## McG

> Parents of dead soldier 'offended' by O'Connor's assertion on funeral costs
> Meagan Fitzpatrick, CanWest News Service
> Published: Thursday, May 31, 2007
> 
> OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper ignored calls for Gordon O'Connor's resignation Wednesday after a military family disputed the defence minister's statement that his department pays full funeral costs for fallen soldiers.
> 
> The parents of Cpl. Matthew Dinning, killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan last year, say there were "offended" when they heard O'Connor make the assertion Monday in the House of Commons.
> 
> ...
> 
> The couple has received some money from the military -$5,600 - to pay the $12,000 funeral bill but several expense claims submitted by the family have not been addressed.
> 
> For example,* the parents paid the $3,000 cost of holding the funeral in an arena*, which was necessary to accommodate the 2,300 people who attended it, they explained. They would also like to be reimbursed for the grief counselling that the fallen soldier's mother is taking, which has so far totalled about $4,000 and continues.
> 
> ...



I can understand the military paying for a funeral, but renting an arena just seems well outside the bounds of reasonable.  I wonder if this is a fallout of the over responce during Apollo.  The public saw it & now some families have an expectation for it . . . 

And counselling?  I agree that VAC should have something in place for this, but there it is in no way a funeral cost.


----------



## FSTO

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> FTSO,
> 
> The Dinnings would indeed have received the SDB (2 years of members pay), if their son designated one of them as the beneficiary. I would suspect that he did, and that they, in fact, have already received that payment benefit. The Dinnings have _never_ once stated that they _did not receive _ the SDB (Supplementary Death Benefit).
> 
> They have stated however that they did not receive the VAC Death Benefit, of 250K, which they are referring to as the "Survivors Benefit." They did not receive this benefit as they are not entitled to it as per current VAC regulations which limit it's payment to deceased members with spouse and/or children.
> 
> The two benefits are NOT the same thing, and I say again, not once have the Dinnings said that they did not receive the SDB to which they were entitled (if named as beneficiary).
> 
> See here:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/62719/post-572745.html#msg572745



ArmyVern, the CFAO I quoted was for Supplementary Death Benefits. 

But somewhere in the SYSTEM, somebody screwed up. The Minister and CDS can both say that they ordered that ALL costs will be paid. But we all know that there was a civilian or military clerk/supervisor/officer take your pick that decided that they would quote TB rules and regs chapter and verse and approve funds that are not to exceed 6,000.00. I assume, after the look I saw on the CDS's face yesterday, that I wouldn't want to be in that persons shoes today.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

teddybear said:
			
		

> When my husband was killed, my AO told me what expenses were covered and which were not. It was my choice to add and/or upgrade certain things. I was clearly informed that I would be responsible for those expenses incurred outside the military's budget. I chose to give my husband a military funeral and burial at Beechwood. 99% of the expenses were covered except the casket upgrade.
> I understand that a civilian funeral and burial are more expensive, however, should one soldier be entitled to more than the other? Maybe the budget should be increased but there has to be a limit on what we can expect them to pay. Should you chose to upgrade, you chose the expense also.
> As for the Sudden Death Benefit, yes that goes to the soldier's dependents. Most single soldiers are not supporting their parents. There is no financial loss to the parents when they die. However, in my case, my husband was the sole provider for our family. And I have 2 little girls that I have to raise for a long time on my own. The parents would have recieved 2 years salary plus his SISIP. The sudden death benefit was not in place when Matt died.



God bless you, this can't have been easy to write about. As said by others and now by you...when the AO and the Padre and the support team from the Unit are used wisely one can avoid a lot of problems. When one decides to have a funeral pyre or an arena with a multi media show one is advised by the team that the expense of such things will not be covered in the budget. As you point out upgrades to the standard expenses such as caskets can be done but one is advised of the limits set.
Because we've had experience doing these things we can tell the family the TB guidelines and what kinds of things the unit can pick up......in the case of the Stannix funeral here in Halifax we were able to use the Chapel on Base and overflow rooms....no cost at all to the family...we had the Field Ambulance provide the ushers (his fiance is a Medic) The family was housed in Juno Towers and Russell House. between the Unit(s) and the Base a lot of things were covered in house. the reeception was at the Mess...etc etc.

48th  Regulator...of course the Dinnings were advised, they had a Notification Team as did Teddy bear and everyone else....my question is were they listening or taking the advice? When people choose to ignore the advice given then they are the ones responsible for their choices.


----------



## armyvern

FSTO said:
			
		

> ArmyVern, the CFAO I quoted was for Supplementary Death Benefits.


Exactly. And the family GOT those SDB benefits, they have never once said that they didn't and neither has David Akin. Read his blog, read the linked story. Perhaps a small oversight on their parts has neglected mention of it's receipt to the general Canadian public??

They say they didn't get any Survivor Benefits (Actually "Death Benefits" ) - which are paid by VAC to those who qualify; the Dinning's don't as their son was single.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> But somewhere in the SYSTEM, somebody screwed up. The Minister and CDS can both say that they ordered that ALL costs will be paid. But we all know that there was a civilian or military clerk/supervisor/officer take your pick that decided that they would quote TB rules and regs chapter and verse and approve funds that are not to exceed 6,000.00. I assume, after the look I saw on the CDS's face yesterday, that I wouldn't want to be in that persons shoes today.



I agree, someone screwed up. But it wasn't the military. The family is aware that VAC (as are the media and the opposition) is responsible for the grief counselling, etc...the family has said so in their letter; so someone in the CF did indeed refer them properly to the correct Department for payments of those. Check out the bills...then figure out the actual costs for the funeral that are included...take away the costs for items that are NOT funeral costs...

The 3K for the arena is debateable...but was a choice the family made while fully aware of the ceiling limits for payment of those costs.


----------



## George Wallace

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> ..........of course the Dinnings were advised, they had a Notification Team as did Teddy bear and everyone else....my question is were they listening or taking the advice? When people choose to ignore the advice given then they are the ones responsible for their choices.



I think this line from IN HOC SIGNO can basically sum up the whole discussion.


----------



## Wookilar

So, does all this qualify as "the facts" that Mr Aiken was wondering existed? We've had enough information from people that went through it (  Teddybear), subject matter experts (IN HOC SIGNO and others) and the rest of us....... Departments responsible, TB regulations, etc.

So where is the clarification from the msm, the opposition parties or even from the MND/DND/CF? 

Ticks me off to see the CDS (and all of us) take it on the chin (again) for the sake of a few political points in the polls.


----------



## pbi

> _This whole issue is not about our soldiers, it's about the Liberals trying to make political points on the backs of soldiers families who have suffered the ultimate price. Both the Liberals and the media should be ashamed of themselves._



Sadly, I think that this probably hits the nail on the head. I have been involved on the periphery of a service death in which the grieving family fell into the hands of a journalist and a local MP, and set out to embarass the CF and the Govt, even to the point of misrepresenting the date that the Provincial Medical Examiner's autosy report was made available to them. Grief makes people do strange things.

While I can accept that maybe a few individual cogs in the system might be too tight-assed, or just ignorant (although I don't see anybody advancing any proof of that in this case) as an Army we have come a very long way in the last decade in how we look after our dead and wounded and their families: all units, brigades and bases do their utmost. After all, these are their own soldiers and families. A CO, his RSM and officers/NCOs  and the team assisting the family are not "faceless bureacrats". I have personally been involved in a case in which we went ahead and did stuff for the family that was beyond Treasury Board limits: our attitude was "**** them: he's our soldier".

So, hard-hearted as it might seem, I have to say that in the absence of all the facts, the family's position seems questionable.

Cheers


----------



## armyvern

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Ticks me off to see the CDS (and all of us) take it on the chin (again) for the sake of a few political points in the polls.



Something to remember when we all decide where to cast our votes next election.


----------



## George Wallace

I have just read the letters on David Aken's blog ( http://davidakin.blogware.com/DINNING.pdf ) and I don't agree with all the demands that the Dinning family are making.  They are making claims for things outside of the funeral.  They seem to think that the parents of an adult child who has left home and joined the military are entitled to the same benefits a young soldier's widow and children should have.  They, who have lived full productive lives, still want the same compensation that a widowed mother with little or no income and/or assets would get.  I think their priorities are in the wrong place, or just greedy, in thinking that they are in the same position as a young widow(er) with young children.  

This whole affair stinks.  An OPP officer, with a long career, and a stable bank account demanding the same benefits as a young widow and her children.  I say that this is what is scandalous.  It is a money grab.  Then to claim for a hotel when at the National Police Remembrance Ceremony, just adds to my fury.  I ask the Press, David Aken if he so chooses, to respond to this scandalous behaviour on the part of this family.  Do they want to be treated as if they are on Welfare?  Are they looking for free ride?  

I really don't think that these 'older' parents realize that they have had their adult son leave home - leave the nest - to start his own life, of his own accord; and that this does not equate at all to a 'married' soldier who leaves a young family with no means of support behind.  They have lived long and productive lives and seen their children grow up and leave home.  The widow(er) is just starting their life and does not have the security to fall back on that they (Dinnings) do.  It is even worse if there are children involved, who are now minus a parent.  There is a big difference here, and they don't realize it.  That or they are in it for the money - greed.  They are not the 'Dependants' of their single son.  A married soldier, however, does have 'Dependants' who will need support.

And NO!, I do not think the Press, or even David Aken, will clarify these points to the Canadian Public.  

To me the scandal here is with the family's demands for more free money, and the Press and some politicians for making it into a national smear campaign in the papers.

[Edit:  I must add that David Aken has done much in the way of showing support for the Troops and this is not meant as an assault on his person, but as an honest belief that this story will fade into the woodwork and not be clearly presented to the Public to show all the facts, nor rectify any false statements or judgements that were made.  The Members of the Press are also subject to the 'Editor's Knife', so we can not always judge honestly what is their real thoughts at times.  We are very lucky to have David participate on these forums and I honestly hope that we do nothing to dissuade him from carrying on as an active participant.]


----------



## George Wallace

This whole topic is like a RCIED.  An IED couldn't spread the blame or faults with this story out any better.  What we should be doing is looking for the "Triggerman".


----------



## Wookilar

I'm not disagreeing with you George, but Mr Aiken pointedly called us out to produce some "facts."

We have done so, on a number of fronts. All done concisely and in a professional manner. Craig Oliver's piece on the CTV National News and Mr Aiken himself on CTV newsnet both point to a certain editorial slant (I'd link both pieces, but I am afraid I'm not that savvy, both on http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/news/SEAfghanistan.html).

I do not believe it is too much to ask that Mr Aiken at least acknowledge that there is more to this than he himself originally reported. He's a "soldier in the trenches of Parliament Hill" so to speak and we all understand that he gets his direction from higher, but do not openly challenge us to back up something and then remain silent.

I agree he has done some good work before, however, this incident may damage his credibility here. The ball is firmly in his court, we can do nothing more.

Wook


----------



## pbi

I doubt that we will see any MSM outlet challenge this family, or any other family that tries to stretch things. (And I have recently heard some interesting although unsubstantiated anecdotes about one or two families making outlandish demands...). It would go against one of the fondest popular cultural stereotypes: that any "little people" who challenge "the System" must automatically be right and good, and that any responses provided by "the System's" minions are mere lies and delaying tactics. If the minions try to challenge the little people, then of course they are wickedly trying to crush the rights of tax paying citizens, etc. etc. As with most stereotypes, there is more than a grain of truth in this. And, of course, the MND is not helping very much. 

The difference here is that we  are "The System". It is folks just like any of us who deal with these situations, from the first phone call to the last needs the grieving family has. In fact, some of the folks on line here have been, and are, directly involved. Nobody I know is out to screw the troops or their families. It is too easy to paint a picture of a heartless, nasty machine called "the Military", a mindless tool of that other monster "the Government", and target it. Out of respect for the 99.9% of suffering families who are completely decent and honorable and seek only a just compensation, the CF will not "fight back", nor (probably) will the Govt. The facts, whatever they may be, will only be presented to the extent that the family in question wants to expose them, for whatever their reasons may be.

The greater danger here is not, IMHO, that the CF or the Govt will be embarrassed, but that the faith of our soldiers and their families, and by extension that of the Canadian people, will be shaken when it doesn't need to be.

Cheers


----------



## geo

And for this, we can thank the Canadian Press.  Publishing stories that have not necessarily been properly researched and are not well balanced... showing pros & cons.

Hey - it sells


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> And for this, we can thank the Canadian Press.  Publishing stories that have not necessarily been properly researched and are not well balanced... showing pros & cons.
> 
> Hey - it sells



Unfortunately,

The track record in the past has not helped DND, VAC or the Government in general.  This has left a bad taste in many people mouths (Both serving, and their families).

That has caused many a people, inlcuding myself, to jump on the Dinnings plight.

Maybe this will shead some facts, in the positive, for DND.  They should stand up to the accusations, and provide proof to the contrary to what the Dinnings are disputing was not done.

dileas

tess


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good exchange of ideas/info here...

I did notice locally, a media outlet (CKPR-AM Radio, and Thunder Bay Television) approached the family of a fallen soldier here and asked if they were satisfied with how they were treated, compensated and reimbursed.  The father said he was very satisfied with how the feds dealt with them, and only had a gripe at some provincial tax people delaying some sort of (I'm guessing terminal tax return) paperwork.  And that story ran RIGHT after the Dinning story.  So even though we grouse about media, in some cases, the REST of the story is getting out (albeit slowly).

At this point, though, I'll be interested to see if _*ANY*_ MSM reporter or columnist deals with these policy questions:

Should the NOK of all service members who are killed in the line of duty be compensated in the same way, in light of varying survivor circumstances?

Should reimbursement cover "approved funeral expenses" (to use a bit of a bureaucratic phrase), or "whatever is needed to help the NOK/family deal with the death"?

We shall see...


----------



## HItorMiss

Having personally talked to TeddyBear I can say this with confidence.

Why does one soldier get a stadium for a remembrance and one does not. Is that soldier more of a soldier then the other? The simple answer is NO HE IS NOT and as such is not entitled to it. You get what the CF will pay for and if you want more are advised that it will cost out of your pocket.

The whole thing reeks of greedy in my book.


----------



## Poppa

Let's wind our necks in here folks before something is said/written that makes us look like tools.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Poppa said:
			
		

> Let's wind our necks in here folks before something is said/written that makes us look like tools.



Poppa,
I appreciate the sentiment but, trust me, our eyes are all over this one.

I realize that not one person on here would change places with the Dinning family, and as, for the most part, having connections with the military, we acknowledge the great sacrifice that the family has made, however, IMO this does not give them [or whomever is "using" them] to make political points for the wrong reasons. To do see so lessens the things Cpl. Dinning offered his life for.................

They have more than earned the right to make political statements [ whatever they may be] for the 'right' reasons,  however I don't believe this is one of them.  This is about bias politics.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

David,
I believe some 'real facts', including testimony from 'TeddyBear', has been presented.....



			
				DavidAkin said:
			
		

> I'll go find him and report 'em if you tell me what "real facts" we're missing here ...


----------



## garb811

Update at the Globe and Mail, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act:  Soldier's family to be compensated


> Soldier's family to be compensated
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> June 1, 2007 at 5:05 AM EDT
> OTTAWA — It is difficult to talk about private grief in the glare of television cameras, and it was a long eight-hour drive home from Ottawa for Lincoln and Laurie Dinning. But good news was waiting for them on the other end.
> The Department of National Defence has agreed to reimburse the Dinnings for the expenses related to the death of their son, a military policeman who was killed by a roadside bomb while serving last year in Afghanistan.
> "It's a long way to drive to make a point, but it obviously worked because here we are being reimbursed," Mr. Dinnings said in a telephone interview from his home in the Ontario community of Wingham yesterday. "And, if it's true, then hopefully no other family will have to stand up there and do that again."
> Although the couple spent more than $25,000 to bury Matthew and deal with the psychological fallout of his loss, the government gave them just $6,400 - the amount allowed under decade-old guidelines.
> 
> They did not ask to be recompensed for every dollar. But they went to Parliament this week to argue that some of the additional expenses should reasonably be covered. And they wanted to put a face to anonymous reports - denied by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor - that families of dead soldiers were bearing the costs of the funerals.
> The Dinnings' story created an uproar in the House of Commons, and the couple, who say they are intensely private people, found themselves at the centre of a news media storm. There were 20 messages waiting for them when they arrived home yesterday, most from reporters.
> 
> But one was from the Defence Department.
> 
> "At 3 p.m. today, I spoke to Rear Admiral Tyrone Pile," Mr. Dinning said. "He is the chief of military personnel in Ottawa and he was phoning to confirm my address because they were sending me a cheque for what we had asked for."
> 
> The family will get about $4,700. That includes $525 for a hotel room in Ottawa where they stayed when their son's name was added to the honour roll, $1,200 for grief counselling for Mrs. Dinning up to Dec. 1 of last year, and $2,963 in arena charges.
> 
> Some news reports yesterday, including The Globe and Mail, mistakenly reported that the Dinnings had to rent the arena. The facility was actually offered, rent free, by the local community to accommodate the 2,500 people who wanted to attend Matthew's memorial. But setting up the venue, including chairs, drapes and overtime wages, cost nearly $3,000.
> 
> Rear Adm. Pile also offered to pay for the additional grief counselling that Mrs. Dinning has had since December - and for the counselling she will need in the future, Mr. Dinning said.
> 
> The family has yet to hear an explanation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper as to why their unmarried son did not qualify for the $250,000 death benefit that is given to married soldiers who die in action.
> In a letter Mr. Dinning wrote last August to his family liaison officer he said, "P.S. Brendan is leaving tomorrow to begin his career in the Canadian Forces and my wish is that he loves doing his job as much as Matthew loved doing his."
> 
> Brendan Dinning is Matthew's younger brother. He is also going to be a military police officer and is serving at an Ontario base.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote from article,

"The family has yet to hear an explanation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper as to why their unmarried son did not qualify for the $250,000 death benefit that is given to married soldiers who die in action. "

Notice how Ms. Galloway conveniently did not put quotes on this, therefore one must assume what she means is that SHE doesn't know if the Dinning family have heard the reason but, hey, whats it to you as long as you make the family look greedy and get the free shot at Mr. Harper.........................phffftt.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> David,
> I believe some 'real facts', including testimony from 'TeddyBear', has been presented.....



Let's also remember that when reporters ask for facts or more material, what they often mean is, "will you say that into a camera/microphone for me?"  (esp. for TV).  I remember about a year ago, when a family statement was downplayed because it was done through the military, not face-to-face with a reporter.  High bar to get over, I know, but just thought I'd help decode the "reporterspeak" a bit.

Again, I've given one example of media that have gone for the other side and a little more information - let's see who follows suit....


----------



## MarkOttawa

I posted this as a comment at David Akin's blog--hope it is accurate:
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/5/30/2985375.html?message=

'All CF members have the Supplementary Death Benefit (two years salary) which goes to the person they designate.

"11. The death benefit payable on the death of a participant who is a serving member is an amount equal to twice the member's annual pensionable pay, if that amount is a multiple of $250, or an amount equal to the nearest multiple of $250 above twice the annual pensionable pay of the participant, if the first mentioned amount is not a multiple of $250.

12. The death benefit is payable:
a. to the beneficiary where a deceased participant has designated a beneficiary under CFS Regs; or
b. if no beneficiary has been designated by the deceased participant under CFS Regs,
(i) to the estate of the participant.."
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/212-02_e.asp

Same for Group Life insurance (SISIP), which apparently is compulsory for those serving in Afstan:
http://www.sisip.com/en/Insurance_e/term_e.asp

Meanwhile, Veterans Affairs Canada has "The death benefit...a tax-free, lump sum payment. It is paid to a spouse or common-law partner, and dependent children, if a CF member is:

* killed while in service; or
* injured while in service and dies within 30 days of the injury."
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=forces/nvc/programs/ob&CFID=15088363&CFTOKEN=39951436

"For 2007, the maximum Disability Award is $255,729.25. It is adjusted annually based on the cost-of-living index."
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=Forces/nvc/da_db_include

If Master Corporal Dinnings had nominated either parent as beneficiary, that person would get around $90,000 tax free from the Supplementary Death Benefit, the same for whatever amount of insurance he had bought.

I find it odd that our media have not mentioned these other funds that flow from the death of a CF member.'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## retiredgrunt45

I must agree that the media again took advantage of a grieving families emotions and ran with it. Shame on them!

 But it doesn't lessen the fact that this young man paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving our country and he should be remembered and honoured as a hero. Just as when a police officer dies in the line of duty, they are given a state funeral and so it should be the same for our soldiers. *That means stop haggling over the cost*, Pulling out all the stops and do what ever it takes to honour their sacrifice. For God sake, We are making it sound like we're out haggling over a used car! Shame on all of us for allowing this to turn into the fiasco that is has become. We are a rich nation and the least we can do is give our sons and daughters who sacrifice their lives for us a send off that is equal to the sacrifice thay made. 

 I feel this is disgracefull how this is being treated by all parties involved and I feel great sympathy for the family, who seems to be vultered over at their weekest moments. And to all who seem to think the family is taking advantage of the system, ask your self. 
"what if it was your son or daughter lying in that casket"? If you can't answer this question without hesitation, don't bother.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So if I die I can rightfully ask to have my ashes sent into space at the cost of the gov't?

There are specified rules in black and white.  There shouldn't be any haggeling because the rules are and have been in place for some time.  The gov't and the CF don't want to look like the bad guys over the money and that is why they are staying quiet or some might say professional about the whole thing.
The whole thing about funerals is that no matter what rank you are during your career your send off is the same for all.


----------



## pbi

Lone Wolf: I am with you 100% on this. We are very, very lucky that our death rate is as low as it is so that the Govt can respond as generously as it is in this case. Imagine (God forbid...) that we were to start losing troops at the rate we did in WWII, or (far worse...) WWI. How would we sustain such generosity? What if we lose 100 men in a single fight? ( a morning's work in Flanders or Normandy). Somehow we have to balance respect for our dead and honour to their service with fairness and recognition of actual financial need vs grief-driven desire. We cannot buy back the dead.

Cheers


----------



## teddybear

pbi said:
			
		

> We cannot buy back the dead.
> 
> Cheers


Gen. Hillier offered me anything I needed. However, I don't think he'll go for the time machine so I can go back to the day my husband left and "help" him fall down the stairs. I am completely satisfied with the send off that my husband received. It was very much befitting who he was as a person and a soldier.


----------



## pbi

teddybear said:
			
		

> Gen. Hillier offered me anything I needed. However, I don't think he'll go for the time machine so I can go back to the day my husband left and "help" him fall down the stairs. I am completely satisfied with the send off that my husband received. It was very much befitting who he was as a person and a soldier.


Teddybear, by your wisdom and your own personal loss you have established a position of great respect on this site. Your words cary weight. If you could speak to families that doubt the good intentions of the CF, or of DND, or VAC, what would you say to them? What would you say to those institutions? What is the right way to look at this?

Cheers


----------



## teddybear

pbi said:
			
		

> If you could speak to families that doubt the good intentions of the CF, or of DND, or VAC, what would you say to them? What would you say to those institutions? What is the right way to look at this?
> 
> Cheers



The military is an extension of my own family. And my husband's unit treated me as a member of their family - and still does. They do the best they can to try to ease the pain. They provide you with an Assisting Officer to help you plan the funeral, make travel arrangements for family members, coordinate timings, advise on what is covered by DND, help with the endless mounds of paperwork that follows the death of a member and act as go betweens with VAC. 
Yes, my husband was killed while in service. Any other job, and I would have to pay for family members travel myself, coordinate *and* pay for the funeral, deal with the paperwork and contact life insurance myself. At 7 1/2 months later, my concentration is still not up to snuff to be able to deal with all of that - let alone at a time of crisis. 
Pretty much my response to all the planning was tell me what I'm entitled to and tell me the timings. Maybe I'm just a good military wife but then, so are the other widows that I know. The caring and compassion that my family has been shown has been phenomenal. To attack the military is like attacking my own family members. They can't give me back my husband, BUT they have done everything they can to help ease my pain. That sincere level of caring has come from the top all the way down. The military has honoured my husband and our family at every step of the way. I will be eternally grateful for everything that they have done.


----------



## armyvern

Teddybear,

Something else good has indeed happened to me today. I just read your last post, and as I sit here now with tears streaming down my face, I can only say thank you so much for your dignity, grace and sacrifice.

We will not forget Ted, nor any others from our family who have fallen. Their honour and your sacrifice, reinforce that to us daily. It is your strength and compassion that allow members of the CF family such as myself, who remain carrying their torch, to put our uniforms with pride each day, no matter the adversity we will face.

Thank you once again.

Veronica


----------



## Mike Baker

+1 Vern. Teddybear, that is an amazing post. Thank you.


----------



## cplcaldwell

From ctv.ca, Shared under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC

My italics added.

FWIW



> *Military to pay couple short-changed on funeral*
> *Updated Fri. Jun. 1 2007 4:38 PM ET*
> Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA -- A couple short-changed on the cost of burying their son killed in Afghanistan _is finally getting compensation_.
> 
> The chief of military personnel phoned the parents of Cpl. Matthew Dinning on Thursday to apologize after they were forced to go public this week to plead their case.
> 
> 
> Rear-Admiral Tyrone Pile _promised to send a cheque for the difference between what the funeral cost and what the military paid, as well as cover outstanding grief counselling bills_, Lincoln Dinning said Friday.
> 
> 
> "_He did apologize, saying it should have never happened_." Dinning said.
> 
> 
> Matthew Dinning was killed in a roadside bomb attack on April 22 last year near Kandahar, one of four soldiers to die that day.
> 
> 
> His funeral cost roughly $12,000 -- $6,400 of which was covered by the National Defence burial stipend. The couple will now receive another $4,700, including the cost of a hotel room in Ottawa where they stayed last fall when their son's name was added to the honour roll.
> 
> 
> The Dinning family's request for full reimbursement languished in the military bureaucracy for months, even after two letters to National Defence and a written plea to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They have yet to hear from Harper.
> 
> 
> The Wingham, Ont., couple reluctantly came forward this week after Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied in the House of Commons that families had been left with bills after burying fallen soldiers.
> 
> 
> A spokeswoman for O'Connor refused to discuss the settlement with the family.
> 
> 
> "We are not going to talk about specific cases," said Isabelle Bouchard in an email note. "The minister said in the House that all families would be contacted so it would not be surprising that the Dinning family would have been."
> 
> 
> _The military took steps Friday to burnish away some of the tarnishing debate by honouring military spouses during an enrolment ceremony for 100 new recruits outside Ottawa City Hall_.
> 
> 
> The wives of 10 soldiers, including the widow of Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, were presented with awards of recognition for their support of the military. Girouard was killed last November along with Cpl. Albert Storm, in a roadside bomb attack.
> 
> 
> Among the others receiving recognition, Karen Boire and Lisa Miller, who started the wear red on Fridays campaign to support soldiers overseas.
> 
> 
> In welcoming new recruits to all branches of the service, the country's top military commander pointed to the families of soldiers who gathered to watch the ceremony.
> 
> 
> "_You will be sustained by a military community and a family that does look out for you and that does support you_," Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, assured the 100 trainees.
> 
> 
> "You have some trepidation, some nervousness about putting the uniform on and, in fact, what you're going to face over these next days, weeks, months and several years. Let me just tell you: you can do it."
> 
> 
> On Sunday, National Defence intends to declare 2007 the Year of the Military Family.


----------



## missing1

07:30 Hrs Mar 22 2006, I believe that moment in time will give me the right to comment in this forum.

First I believe a lot of you are belittling a man I believe is being used by the opposition parties. I met Mr dinning on three occasions due to the fact our sons were killed together. He did not appear to me to be any sort of the person most are making him out to be. We must remember that someone who knows little, a friend, a colleague or some politician looking for an brownie point can give a little misinformation that would be taken for gospel by someone who does not know better. maybe he was told he might be allowed these expenses as was the rumour here that NOK got whatever they wanted. 
Next, I have the utmost respect for the Base Comdr, Padre and Randys OC from Wainwright in the way they handled two people at 12:30 AM  (I thought that only happened in movies) that were basket cases when they came to the door. I was lucky (unlucky) enough to be visiting my sons family at the time. During the next few days although we were going through hell the dedication of these three and the assistance given through the base was above reproach. We were informed as to what we could expect by way of assistance both monetary and materially from the military. The funeral was planned as per our wishes within guidelines that were given by the AO, all this by phone between Wainwright and Ontario. Randy had well over 1500 to 2000 people come to see him off, all were told of the limited number of seats available but came anyway. I know of no expense that we were billed for because we overspent. The people that attended the funeral made the funeral what it was, not chairs and air conditioning. It is said that there was close to 1500 people outside the church standing in the heat to pay their respects.
I also attended the Memorial Wall for the Police in Ottawa but this is not a military function but an honour bestowed upon Randy, we paid ourselves, last weekend Randy was inducted into the Veterans Hall of Valour in Ottawa also an honour bestowed but not a Military function. If Mr. Dinning was lead to believe these costs would be reimbursed, the one that gave him the info should cough up the money.
I suggest the fact that the ones that should be doing the explaining about this fiasco is the people that were in power when we were sent to Afghanistan. Why weren't these policies implemented prior to anyone being sent over?
As was noted before this is nothing but a political point getter, but it burns my butt (read ass) to see the CDS blindsided over something like this altho I'm sure he will weather the storm. (we can only hope)
 As for the media that read these forums we can only hope they learn how to get the whole story and get it straight some day soon, and no I'm not interested in taking your calls.
For the NOK that are reading this please check your health benefit package to ensure you have dental coverage included as this item was mysteriously omitted from the benefit package. It has been noted but as usual bureaucracy will hold this up.

In closing sorry for the rant
God Bless
Keep Safe
Pro Patria   

David Payne


----------



## teddybear

missing1 said:
			
		

> For the NOK that are reading this please check your health benefit package to ensure you have dental coverage included as this item was mysteriously omitted from the benefit package. It has been noted but as usual bureaucracy will hold this up.



It is my understanding, though I may be wrong, that the member must have served 10? years for the dependents to receive dental benefits. I receive drug and dental coverage through my husband's pension. However, one of our widows does not qualify for dental coverage. She receives drug coverage through VAC but they do not offer dental coverage. Perhaps this is the case with your daughter in law?

Charmaine


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

missing1 I fail to understand how the family would be lead to believe anything other then what is on the books because as you know your given an assisting officer who should have those answers as to what the member's family is and is not entitled to.  Unfortunately the CF has done this enough times now that there should not be any grey area.


----------



## cplcaldwell

missing1's post wrt to the character or Mr Dinning is well founded.

The dimensions of grief are complex and much more than most people think. I suspect what drives Mr Dinning is a deep and profound anger, which in reality can find no target to come to bear on. The human mind is strange in that regard, it must have a target. The human heart is strange in that regard it must have some solace.

I strongly suspect that Mr Dinning's anger is driven as much as grief as by anything else, and I strongly doubt that he has any agenda to wring a few extra shillings out of anyone. 

In that regard missing1 is correct to defend Mr Dinning. 

_I think_, we must look more closely at persons who have sought to achieve a political agenda and to those members of the fifth estate, in both cases to sensationalize the situation _and_ through laziness, stupidity or neglect failed to outline exactly what was paid. (Quite clearly members of this form have made 'pro forma' calculations, based on official, open source facts, all of which would clear up the misconception, that only 4675 was paid. I have yet to see any of that in the press or from the opposition benches said or writ.)

Shame on them.

Mr Dinning is living in a world that I hope none of you ever see. He is, _to me_, blameless.


----------



## George Wallace

For many who have contributed to this discussion, and haven't read the letters from the Dinnings laying out the costs of the funeral, and other requests, before you go any further, please read the letters in David Aken's blog on the link.





http://davidakin.blogware.com/DINNING.pdf


----------



## missing1

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> missing1 I fail to understand how the family would be lead to believe anything other then what is on the books because as you know your given an assisting officer who should have those answers as to what the member's family is and is not entitled to.  Unfortunately the CF has done this enough times now that there should not be any grey area.


It is very easy to understand if you had ever been put into this sort of debate with people that know nothing of what the military is about. When Randy died it was rumoured that he was entitled to thousands more than what is paid, his wife's home was paid for, claim this claim that. We don't believe that for a second, but a lot of civvies did. If you are not aware of what the policy is, at this tumultuous time, it would very easy get out of hand. The family in question is not a military family, therefore you tell them they can get this or that someone might just believe it. Even tho you have an AO what you hear from others sometimes sounds gospel.


----------



## mb

Hello all, I certainly do not know all the details of what benefits are paid or not and what has been promised or not. I have read through the entire post and the posted letters Lincoln has submitted. One thing I do know is the integrity of Lincoln and Laurie. As their current neighbor I can attest to their integrity. As a paramedic working along side Lincoln I can attest to his integrity. All the expenses are legitimate from what I can see. If he says they said they would pay for it, then they said it, if whoever said it was accurate or not. At a time like that I wouldn't expect the normal response to be "can I have that in writing". If their understanding is that the expenses are paid and the government of the day says they have paid all the expenses and they have not received payment, you can understand their frustration. I really, really think you have the wrong idea if you think they are going for a money grab, they are just not that type of people.


----------



## pbi

teddybear said:
			
		

> The military is an extension of my own family. .. I will be eternally grateful for everything that they have done.



Thanks teddybear. Well said. I just wish more Canadians could hear this point of view, which I believe is the point of view of most of the bereaved CF families. Sadly, the media seems to want to give more play to the cases where either we have actually failed; or some family member (sometimes quite a distant family member...) judges that we've failed. I guess, though, to be fair, that if the media did not pick up on things like this (as clumsily and inadequately as they often do) then perhaps the story might not be told at all, and the pressure needed to make corrections in the system would never materialize.

Although I believe very strongly that we do the right thing almost every time, at this point I'll leave this line of argument: I think I may have strayed into casting aspersions where I didn't really mean to.

Cheers


----------



## niner domestic

I’ve been thinking about this thread and the issues that it covers quite a lot over the last few days.  It certainly has brought up some painful memories for me, especially since the anniversary of my husband’s death is approaching.

Yet, I want to be able to say to the families especially the Dinnings that it does get better, it doesn’t get easier, but it does get better in time.  I am not judging you, nor will I and I’m glad that you have had a chance to say your goodbyes to your son and to the other families that have posted or are reading this thread, I mourn with you.  

Our Country  has made some mistakes in the managing of our fallen, the Dinnings, the Woodfields have all but become familiar with these shortcomings.  We, as a country are behaving as the individuals whom I had to deal with when my husband was killed on that day in June, 25 years ago.  I ran across those whose hearts were in the right places but they couldn’t manage to say the graceful comment and blundered through in their expression of condolences.  I met those who promised me the world of support, but disappeared after the bands stopped playing and the flags stopped waving and I met those who couldn’t understand why my grieving was taking so long, and felt it should be over and done with in a few short weeks.  I had others who spoke openly that they didn’t think the surviving family deserved any more than a weekly allotment and decried us tax burdens to the country.  People will always have an opinion and they will inevitably voice their opinion when they can. If I learned one thing during that time was to smile, be graceful and thank them for their comments.  We, as a country, have not yet learned to behave in dealing with our fallen’s families.  Our country is like the individual who understands what death is, but has never really come close to it.  When we do, we simply do not know how to behave.  We make the blundering promises of support because we simply do not know what to say to comfort these families.  We understand life, we don’t understand death.  

But then I met the widows of the Korea, Northern Ireland and the two great wars. I yearned to be able to speak as they did with the quiet dignity and pride that emanated from them.  I wanted to stop being angry in my grief.  Those women and families showed me how to survive my grief.  I felt akin to them and it was almost as if we spanned the eras in our collective grief.  Sadly, our families that now have to face their grief are not able to draw from others who share that they too, once loved and lost a soldier, sailor or airmen/woman.  

I am glad that our Country has tried to do the right and honourable thing with our fallen.  When my husband was killed, his body was not brought home, he is buried where he fell.  (Although to be fair, the UK did offer to repatriate the bodies a few years later). I had no say in any of the memorial services that followed.  The country, the Corps, the Unit and the Cities all had their own ideas of wanting to honour them.  I was simply to get in the car they sent and attend. I was a subject of interest for the media as there was always a need to print a shot of a tearful widow. That sold papers.  I never got to hear my husband’s favourite hymn, or biblical passage nor did I get to have my last goodbye.  I finally got to have a private memorial service for him one year later, when we dedicated a grave marker on the family plot.  We had to pay for those services although the govt paid for the tiny marker.  I pay a lady in the town next to where he is buried to make sure that there are fresh flowers on his grave for his birthday, Father’s day, Christmas and such.  I’ve been paying that for 25 years and it’s in my will to provide for a continued stipend so that his grave is never left uncared for. (not including the care that the war graves comm. provide.) Now I realize that all this was in a different country, in a different time period but that was the way things were done then.  

So when I read that we were to repatriated our fallen, I was relieved for the families.  I was relieved for them that they got to determine the details of the funeral arrangements and glad that those services did not turn into a dog and pony show for the media.  I was relieved for them that in their grief they would find great solace in the act of bereavement and remembrance and that they would be spared any additional pains of a long mourning period.  Although it appears in the aftermath that the MSM is finding the families still of exploitative value for a good cover story and that horrifies me.  

We need to do better as a country in learning how to approach the subject of our fallen.  We need to do better in understanding the magnitude of grief these families are experiencing and they do so without the ability to turn to a family of a past conflict and draw from them. We need to stop uttering empty words of condolences and step up to the plate to continue to support them.  If we, as members or former members of the CF, cannot earnestly support these families and by extension teach our fellow Canadians how to approach the issue of our fallen’s deaths and their families, then no one can.  Shame on us, if we continue to fail them.  Our words of condolences to them will cease to be filled with meaning, they will be - but an empty gesture.


----------



## cplcaldwell

From today's Toronto Star, reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act, RSC.

My italics added





> *No death benefit for single soldier*
> Jun 04, 2007 04:30 AM
> *Bruce Campion-Smith
> Ottawa Bureau*
> 
> OTTAWA–_Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson has shot down the demand of parents of an unmarried soldier killed in Afghanistan to get the $250,000 death benefit available only to married soldiers._
> 
> Lincoln and Laurie Dinning have accused the federal government of discrimination because their son, Cpl. Matthew Dinning, did not qualify for the benefit, part of the New Veterans Charter that won all-party support in 2005.
> 
> _But Thompson said the death benefit in the new charter is meant to support immediate family members left behind._
> 
> _"The death benefit is intended for the widows and widowers and dependent children of veterans. It was never intended to be life insurance," _  Thompson said in an interview.
> 
> Their son was serving as a military police officer when he was killed with three other soldiers by a roadside bomb on April 22, 2006.
> 
> The Dinnings went to Parliament Hill last week to complain that a year after his death, they were still out of pocket for some funeral expenses. But they also complained about what they said was an inequity in the payouts for single soldiers killed on duty.
> 
> Lincoln Dinning quoted from a letter he wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper on April 25 this year, complaining that his son had been discriminated against because he did not qualify for the $250,000 death benefit and is thus "worth $0 in your government's eyes."
> 
> While the Dinnings did get financial support for their son's funeral costs, Thompson said the death benefit is "all about supporting a youth veteran and his children and spouse."


----------



## MarkOttawa

cplcaldwell: A letter sent to the _Toronto Star_ earlier today:



> Bruce Campion's story about the $250,000 (now actually $255,000) death benefit available only to married soldiers gives only part of the picture.  All Canadian Forces members have the Supplementary Death Benefit (two years salary) which goes to the person whom they designate.    In addition, members can purchase group life insurance (SISIP).
> 
> If Master Corporal Dinnings had nominated either parent as beneficiary, that person would get around $90,000 tax free from the Supplementary Death Benefit, plus the life insurance if he had enrolled in that plan.
> 
> I find it odd that Mr Campion did not mention these other benefits that result from the death of a CF member.
> 
> References:
> http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/212-02_e.asp
> http://www.sisip.com/en/Insurance_e/term_e.asp
> http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=Forces/nvc/da_db_include



But I imagine one from a CF member making similar points would have more effect and more chance of being printed.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cplcaldwell

Thanx Mark. Like many folks I am aware of how the SDB, Death Gratuity, CFSA and SISIP works.

(Although, I must confess in the last week or so, since this story hit, I've spent more than a few minutes leafing through my copy of "Death and Disability Programs and Services: A guide for serving and former Canadian Forces Personnel and their families" published by the DND-VAC Centre).1

We shall see if that letter gets published. 

We shall see how this issue spins up ...  again.

Sensitive subject that requires just the sort of clarification in the letter. 

Sensitive subject that will require some careful and accurate portrayal to the public.

*I'll leave it at that for now.*

We shall see.... .... 


1- www.forces.gc.ca/centre or toll free 1 800 883 6094 or walk in to 285 Coventry Road, 2nd floor, Ottawa.  In addition, the publication I refer to may be downloaded in PDF from http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/centre/pdf/ddbenefits_e.pdf .   For lurkers-  :-*


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Well if things weren't bad enough, now we got some constitutional expert saying that that denying the Dinning family the $250,000 survivor benefit is unconstitutional because the Charter denies discrimination on marital status. The link can be found here:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/06/04/pf-4233940.html


----------



## armyvern

I think the VAC Death benefit would stand up to a Charter Challenge.

After all,

A married soldier has parents too, and they are not receiving this benefit which is intended to ensure financial stability for dependant/spouse of deceased members.

 If a single soldier's parents are to get it because there can be no discrimination based on "marital status," so should the parents of deceased married soldiers, in addition to his/her spouse/children.  To do anything less would itself discriminate against a married soldiers parents because of that same "marital status" of their deceased son/daughter. And, I'd argue, that a married soldiers parents would be no less deserving of it than a single soldiers parents would be.

The circle just gets bigger. There simply needs to be limits.


----------



## observor 69

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/RTGAM.20070605.wdinnings03/BNStory/National/home


Errol Mendes of the University of Ottawa says it's clearly established in law that discrimination based on martial status violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and he wonders why Veterans Affairs still supports the practice.

"There is a compelling case on the part of single soldiers," Prof. Mendes said yesterday. "Whether or not there is a legal case, there is a huge moral, social, ethical and political reason why the government should be covering this."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

"marital status"??   What if he's a single father?  How's that "based on marital staus"?

God, I hate stooges. [ sorry Curly, Larry, Moe]


----------



## armyvern

Precedents?? Lots of them. Discrimination based on family status is also not allowed.

Let's see:

Child Tax Benefits (ooops only applicable if you have children);

Child Care Rebate/Allowance (what is it 100/month?? and also only applic if you have children); and another for now...

Writing off someone else's expenses on your income tax claim?? (ooops only applicable if you are married or have dependants);

Discrimination based on age...

Old age pension...(oops only if you happen to be old enough to collect it).


----------



## armyvern

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> "marital status"??   What if he's a single father?  How's that "based on marital staus"?
> 
> God, I hate stooges. [ sorry Curly, Larry, Moe]



True that Bruce, 

Many pers can indeed have dependant children and still be single. Those children would be eligible to receive the Death Benefit from VAC.


----------



## GAP

Death benefit unlikely to change: minister
GLORIA GALLOWAY  June 5, 2007
Article Link

OTTAWA -- The father of a young man killed last year in Afghanistan received a letter from the Prime Minister yesterday to say to the Conservative government will respond to his concerns about possible inequities in the military death benefit.

But Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson, one of the ministers who was handed Lincoln Dinning's complaint, said he does not foresee any changes being made to the benefit because he does not believe it is unfair.

Mr. Dinning wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in April to point out that families of married soldiers who are killed in action are entitled to a payment of $250,000 that is not available to the families of single members of the forces, such as his son Matthew.

The benefit is meant "to help re-establish the family - widows, widowers and dependent children - following the death of a loved one," Mr. Thompson explained.
More on link


----------



## niner domestic

Oh, how we soon forget the Leglace case...

Not so long ago (1993), the Government said, no to common law partners of CF members being eligible for benefits.  It was challenged, the usual arguments were applied and we now have common-law status and benefits conferred.  

Don't be so quick to dismiss the ever changing society we live in and when necessary, the laws/regulations/directives that will change to reflect that.  The US mil has provided for benefits to be paid to dependent parents. Saskatchewan (among other provinces) has legislation to protect an aging parent so that they can be awarded support by their children.  Boomers are moving in with their adult children on a frequent basis.  There is a ton of social commentary on the "sandwich generation" and the potential for adult children to have to care for both their children and their parents.  It is only a matter of time before the stats indicate the trend in which we are heading of parents becoming dependent on their children.  As health care facilities decline, or become over burdened, income retirement savings shrink, COL goes up, and we find ourselves living longer, the governments will be looking to the families to care for the older generations on their own dime.  

While the governments are slow to recognize these any of these changes, they nevertheless do eventually catch up and amend the legislation.  

It's easy to sit and pass judgement on a parent who has lost their child that they are undeserving of any benefits because they appear to be in good health or young enough.  But fast forward that person to the age of 70, when their health isn't so good, or they have no partner left.  Their child is still dead so they can not seek help from that arena.  Why should we not take that into consideration?  What do we tell them then? Sorry your child died for his/her country and we appreciate your sacrifice Mrs. but in your infirmity, you're just going to have to suck it up because we have our limits and we don't care whether your child would have helped you out.  

We asked their child to die for their country.  The least we can do is set aside a pension for these parents when they turn 65.


----------



## armyvern

I don't necessarily disagree with you Niner Domestic.  

What I believe is that it has nothing to do whatsoever with marital status of the member. If it is changed _and_:

If a single soldiers parents get it, then so _should_ a married soldiers parents, as well as that soldiers spouse/children. Seems pretty fair to me huh? Anything else would be discriminatory...

Mind you, I do know one Cpl who has his grandmother living in his household as an infirm dependant, who also has a spouse and 3 kid in that house too; and 2 parents (living on their own and not on his income)...and the circle widens some more. So, there should be 3 payments of the Death benefit coming in a sit such as the above, as the soldier is indeed supporting his own spouse/offspring...and the grandmother. Plus, by the same "marital status" arguement his parents should be entitled.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

niner domestic said:
			
		

> It's easy to sit and pass judgement on a parent who has lost their child that they are undeserving of any benefits because they appear to be in good health or young enough.  But fast forward that person to the age of 70, when their health isn't so good, or they have no partner left.  Their child is still dead so they can not seek help from that arena.  Why should we not take that into consideration?  What do we tell them then? Sorry your child died for his/her country and we appreciate your sacrifice Mrs. but in your infirmity, you're just going to have to suck it up because we have our limits and we don't care whether your child would have helped you out.
> 
> We asked their child to die for their country.  The least we can do is set aside a pension for these parents when they turn 65.



Bullshit.
Maybe I'm just having a cynical morning but this is just sniveling tripe playing on our wah-wah's.

Lots of parents bury children for various reasons, please give me some legalise-speak/thought on why a soldiers parents are more important than say, a plumbers parents, who also had the misfortune of losing a child while that child was doing the job THEY PICKED to do?

[Not a slam to any of our brave fallens family, but I think the previous arguement is taken it to the point of silliness]


----------



## Harris

Agreed.  There has to be a line somewhere.  It's fine to say so and so is supporting their parents, Grandparents, etc, but seriously, does that now mean Police, Firefighters, Ambulance attendants, etc should also get these benefits?  Where does it stop?  And who is going to pay for all this extra funding?  Remember, every soldier in Canada currently CHOSE to join the military.  If we had conscription then I agree things should be different.  I feel the current policies are more than fair.  If the soldier needs to support extended family then buy Life insurance.  That's what I've done.


----------



## vonGarvin

I think that given this ever widening argument, the death "benefit" is to offset losses for the survivors, no?  I mean, were Mr and Mrs Dinning being supported, NOW, by their deceased son?  I mean, what are the financial losses for Mr and Mrs Dinning?  

This is part of the reason that I don't have life insurance on my children.  Were they to pass on (Heaven Forbid!), no amount of money would make up for my loss.  Insurance is to ease the financial burdens when a bread winner passes.  It is NOT a lottery where you "win" money if a loved one passes.  (So, I guess just "enough" insurance to cover the funeral expenses for my kids....)

This is a depressing subject.  I'm going to go kick a puppy to transfer my misery to something else!   >


----------



## KevinB

+1 to Capt S 

 I mentioned to Vern elsewhere that I expected someone to question the constitutionality of the Death Benifits bit.  IMHO the entire things is a fiasco.  SDB as mentioned previously is 2 YEARS of the members salary - no pardon my french - But WTF did the Dinnings do with that?
  Maybe I'm a calous and cold individual (strike that I am) -- but given SISIP and SDB payments, I don't see the financial hardship.  Now the emotional as has been expressed elsewhere is priceless -- but unfortunately when you take the Queen's shilling the fact remains you become an expendable asset.


----------



## niner domestic

Well they pinned a Silver Cross medal on my Mother-in-law and said thank you ma'am for your sacrifice, we'll see you next Remembrance Day.  She was 46 when her son died.  She'd never worked, her job was to take care of her son and then her husband.  Her son had sent her 20 pounds a pay period to help her out.  

Because I was considered her legal next of kin after her husband passed away, my income and assets were taken into consideration when the old girl landed in the nursing home from too many years of taking pills to numb the pain of surviving her child.  She asked all his mates that had survived, if he had at least said "mother" before he died, because she had heard that a dying soldier does that.  Every year, my daughter lost another part of the only family of her dad's she had left as my mother-in-law retreated into her grief.  

But every year, on November 11th, they would trot her out of the home, wrap a blanket around her and say, "Thanks ma'am for your sacrifice.", give her a wee dram and trot her back to the home.  While I wrote the cheque to cover the cost of her care.  

She'd had an insurance policy taken out on her son, had done since he was a child.  When she went to collect the benefit, they said, "Sorry for your loss but it was an act of war, it nullified the policy."  I gave her a third of the benefits I had received, but then the tax man, took most of it as it considered a taxable income.  I tried to help her, and I did what I could, when I could.  I paid her bills, and sat with her while she thought my daughter was her son.  

The old girl died last year, no one was ever able to answer the only question she ever asked, "Did he mention my name?".  Her grief knew no bounds. I finally had to lie to her just before she died and told her that he did call for her.  She just smiled and said, "That's my good boy then".  

So sure, call it BS all you want about wanting to see the parents done right by.  When you live it, you can call it anything you want.  Was she more deserving than a mother of a plumber? Maybe not, but she certainty paid her price of admission to her hell.


----------



## Pearson

I would suggest that the "benefit" be considered part of thier estate,  and it would fall to thier next of kin, or whom ever the member chooses prior to deployment.


----------



## vonGarvin

niner domestic said:
			
		

> So sure, call it BS all you want about wanting to see the parents done right by.  When you live it, you can call it anything you want.  Was she more deserving than a mother of a plumber? Maybe not, but she certainty paid her price of admission to her hell.



Of course ALL parents should be done by right.  Nobody is disputing that.  What is at stake in this case (not the case of your mum-in-law) are the Dinnings.  Have they suffered a grave loss?  Damn straight!  Do they deserve the quarter of a million dollars?  I don't think so.  Would Cpl Dinning had he had a wife/husband/spouse?  Yes, because at least part of the financial burden of the loss of the bread winner should be covered by the people (read: taxes).  If we extend it to parents of single service members, then what of the parents of married service members?  Their in-laws?  


In this case, some lawyers are arguing that single persons are being discriminated against due to their marital status.  As pointed out, this is not the case.  It is a cold hard fact that unless parents are in the direct care of a service member who dies in the service of The State, the State owes those parents nothing in terms of finances, (not talking about funeral costs, etc.  I'm talking about a lotto 6/49 size winfall).


----------



## niner domestic

I don't which I find more offensive, your twice used term of lottery winnings in context to the death of these people's son or the idiot that told me, "You're  young, you'll get married again, the girl will have a replacement daddy soon enough."  I can't decide which is worse.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Time for a 24 hour cooling off period. 

If you were drafting a response, save it and review it tomorrow with a cooler head.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## formerarmybrat23

*Denying death benefit to single soldiers unconstitutional: expert     *  

 Murray Brewster, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, June 04, 2007 Article tools
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=a2351fac-e675-4cd9-9eb9-799d422e7f32&k=59531
   

 OTTAWA — The Conservative government's denial of a $250,000 death benefit to the families of unmarried soldiers killed in Afghanistan is a policy that's begging to be challenged before a court or human rights tribunal, says a constitutional expert.

Errol Mendes of the University of Ottawa says it's clearly established in law that discrimination based on marital status violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and he wonders why Veterans Affairs still supports the practice.

"There is a compelling case on the part of single soldiers," Mendes said Monday.

"Whether or not there is a legal case, there is a huge moral, social, ethical and political reason why the government should be covering this."

The death benefit — available only to married soldiers — is part of the new Veterans Charter, which was passed with all party support in 2005.

Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson denied there's an inequity — legal or otherwise.

"It's not discriminatory, it's very consistent with all of the programs that preceded the new Veterans Charter," Thompson said.

The purpose of the lump-sum payment was to help widows and orphaned children of soldiers re-establish themselves and deal with such things as moving from life in the military to the civilian world.

"The death benefit was never intended to be life insurance where there is a designated beneficiary," said Thompson, who added that he's not contemplating any changes to the current policy.

Soldiers with no dependants are encouraged to take out life insurance to provide for family members such as parents, Thompson said, but he acknowledged it's not mandatory and many don't do it.

The government's response disappointed Mendes, who said the minister is "leaving the families little option than to consider" a human rights complaint or legal action.

It also upset the mother of an unmarried soldier who died in Afghanistan in 2005.

"This just isn't right in this country in this day in age," said Beverley Woodfield, mother of Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, 24.

Like the fight to increase the funeral stipend for soldiers killed in action, Mendes said the death benefit is another battle that shouldn't have to happen: "These people have sacrificed their lives for the rest of us and I think it's very sad they may be forced to start this process."

Last week, the parents of another unmarried soldier, Cpl. Matthew Dinning who died in a roadside bomb attack in April 2006, also criticized the policy.

During a news conference over the failure of National Defence to cover all of the costs associated with his son's funeral, Lincoln Dinning quoted from a letter he wrote Prime Minister Stephen Harper on April 25. In it, he complained that his son had faced discrimination because he did not qualify for the $250,000 death benefit and was therefore "worth $0 in your government's eyes."

On Monday, the Dinnings received a cheque for the outstanding portion of their son's funeral costs and a letter from Harper, which said he was raising the death benefit concerns with both Thompson and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

Woodfield spoke out on the issue last summer, prompting New Democrat veterans affairs Peter Stoffer write Thompson, suggesting all soldiers be allowed to receive the payment and to designate a beneficiary.

"It would cost them money and it's all about dollars and cents," Stoffer said Monday.

"(The government are the) first ones to say support the troops and if you even dare question the Conservatives on any aspect of the troops, they go crazy on you. When these soldiers pay the ultimate sacrifice their families end up in a fight all over again."

Woodfield, who keeps in regular contact with her son's buddies serving overseas, said unmarried soldiers would welcome an expanded benefit, but are reluctant to speak out for fear of being disciplined and the families of many of those killed are still too distraught to speak out. 

"That is a sad state of affairs in this country," she said from her home in Dartmouth, N.S. 

"People in this case are grieving and mourning of an ultimate loss and this case its parents grieving and mourning the ultimate loss of a child of theirs. They have to step out of that dark box and say, this is not right that they have to go to this length to be heard."


----------



## McG

> DND more than doubles funeral expense stipend for soldiers' families
> Canadian Press
> Published: Monday, June 18, 2007
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - The Defence Department has more than doubled the funeral stipend given to the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty.
> 
> The new rate of $12,700 will apply to all service members killed since the country began its involvement in Afghanistan in October 2001. Last month, a controversy erupted in the House of Commons when it was revealed that some families had to pay out-of-pocket for some burial expenses.
> 
> A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the new death benefits program is also more flexible, picking up costs for things such as obituaries, flowers and receptions - items that until this point had not been covered.
> 
> Isabelle Bouchard says defence staff tried to model the new benefits package on what the RCMP provides for its for officers and their families.
> 
> The old military rate of $4675 had not been revised since 1999.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9ded69e6-cfa5-4a34-88ef-04201a2918f7&k=59629


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

This increase on par with a typical funeral for 2007?


----------



## Yrys

I would say it _depend on what you are spending_... In 1989 I put my mother under ground for
less then a thousand, which was a lot less then a funeral those days. I had her incinerate, 
as she had wishes, with no exposition, so no coffin, which save a lot of money.


----------



## GAP

Denying death payment to single soldiers' families discriminatory, family claims
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 6/06/2010
Article Link

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is examining whether Ottawa discriminates against families of single soldiers killed overseas by excluding them from a quarter-million dollar death benefit.

The Canadian Press has learned the agency plans to convene a tribunal hearing some time in the next few months. It will weigh the complaint of an Ontario couple whose son Cpl. Matthew Dinning died in a roadside bomb attack in Kandahar four years ago.

"Married and single soldiers have fought side-by-side in Afghanistan, they wore the same uniform, they died for the same country, the caskets were draped in the same flag, they should be treated the same as far as death benefits go," Lincoln Dinning said in an interview from his Wingham, Ont. home.

"It's a moral and ethical issue. And it's about treating all fallen soldiers the same."

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

But single soldiers are excluded from the benefit, which was introduced when the Conservative government implemented the new Veterans Charter in 2006. The charter fundamentally reorganized the way former soldiers, sailors and aircrew are treated after they retire and the benefits their families receive.

"This is not about money because $250,000, (nor) $250 million is going to bring any of the soldiers back," Dinning said. "It's about treating all fallen soldiers the same, with dignity and respect, regardless of their marital status."

Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn would not comment on the specifics of the human rights case, but said the payment was implemented after careful consideration.

Under the old system, the federal government paid only a supplementary death benefit, calculated at two times the member's annual earnings. The cash went to the spouse, or another designated beneficiary of the soldier. If there was no beneficiary, the money would go into the estate.

The $250,000 payment under the new charter was described as an improvement by federal officials, but in order to implement it in 2005-06 they had to narrow the existing definition of eligible survivor, according to documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information legislation.

"The new definition 'surviving family' will be added and defined as 'surviving eligible spouse and dependant children,"' said an analysis of the new charter, dated Aug. 9, 2004.
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6

All eligible next of kin should get the same death benefit.


----------



## gcclarke

I'm going to disagree, with a minor amendment. All eligible dependants should get the same death benefit. So, any kids and spouses, common-law or the regular kind. 

However, if your next of kin is a non-dependant parent, uncle, etc, then no. The death benefits are there to help ensure that people who were previously relying upon the member to support them do not become destitute as a result.


----------



## DexOlesa

I'm going to agree with GClark. That $250k is to in theory, move them off base, get them a house wherever they move to, etc. as potentially the only bread winner is gone. So DEPENDANT family yes. Non Dependant family.......grey area.


----------



## tomahawk6

This is how the uS pays its death gratuity which I think is what the CF should change to.



> The death gratuity amount is made payable to survivors of the deceased in this order:
> 
> 1. The member's lawful surviving spouse.
> 
> 2. If there is no spouse - to the child or children of the member, regardless of age or marital status, in equal shares.
> 
> 3. If none of the above - to the parents, or brothers and/or sisters, or any combination as designated by the deceased member.
> 
> 4. Natural father or mother.
> 
> 5. Father or mother through adoption, in equal shares.
> 
> 6. Natural brothers and sisters.
> 
> 7. Any person who acted as guardian for not less than one year at any time before the deceased member's entry into active service.
> 
> 8. Brothers and sisters of half blood and those through adoption.
> 
> 9. Surviving parents, in equal shares.
> 
> 10. Surviving brothers and sisters, in equal shares.
> 
> The death gratuity is not paid to any other person when there are no survivors as listed above.


----------



## mariomike

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This is how the uS pays its death gratuity which I think is what the CF should change to.



Links:
"The death gratuity payment is $12,420, and is non-taxable. For those whose death is as a result of hostile actions and occurred in a designated combat operation or combat zone or while training for combat or performing hazardous duty, the payment is $100,000":
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/casualty/blgratuity.htm
http://www.military.com/benefits/survivor-benefits/death-gratuity

Stars and Stripes: "New rule makes troops’ death gratuity more flexible":
http://www.stripes.com/news/new-rule-makes-troops-death-gratuity-more-flexible-1.67315


----------



## Remius

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> I'm going to agree with GClark. That $250k is to in theory, move them off base, get them a house wherever they move to, etc. as potentially the only bread winner is gone. So DEPENDANT family yes. Non Dependant family.......grey area.



In theory.  But that isn't how it is being applied.  What about service spouses?  Or spouses that have gainful employment?  I'm pretty sure they qualify.  One rule should apply to all.  The American rules shown above seem reasonable.


----------



## dapaterson

Keep in mind that the $250K payment (as of 2008 just over $260K, due to inflationary adjustments) is on top of the Supplementary Death Benefit (SDB) amount of 2 years pay.  The SDB is paid to a beneficiary specified by the member, if no beneficiary is specified it is paid to the estate.

See http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/cen/pub/ddb-pdi/sbcdrf-spcdfr-eng.asp#sbc-spc-08


----------



## armyvern

Crantor said:
			
		

> In theory.  But that isn't how it is being applied.  *What about service spouses?  Or spouses that have gainful employment? *  I'm pretty sure they qualify.  One rule should apply to all.  The American rules shown above seem reasonable.



They are still household dependants aren't they?? Living in and supporting the deceased member's household?

Quite unlike parents living somewhere else, in another household and supporting their own particular household vice the member's.


----------



## Remius

So is that the definition to which the benefit applies to?  Household dependant?  How about a single soldier taking care of an aging parent? Or a disabled brother?

I'm asking because I don't know.  If it is defined as a household dependant ok.  Or is it defined by what would be a legal dependant.  for instance a child living fulltime with a parent who is divorced from a service member.  But some people are reasoning that it is there to help spouses who may not have a job or the member was a the only bread winner.  This isn't the case.  Are there other factors that help determine this?  Like overall combined salaries?  Where they lived ie base versus their own house?  Again I'm asking vecause I don't know.

But as I stated before, the american system of determining who qualifies seems pretty reasonable.


----------



## armyvern

Crantor said:
			
		

> So is that the definition to which the benefit applies to?  Household dependant?  How about a single soldier taking care of an aging parent? Or a disabled brother?
> 
> I'm asking because I don't know.  If it is defined as a household dependant ok.  Or is it defined by what would be a legal dependant.  for instance a child living fulltime with a parent who is divorced from a service member.  But some people are reasoning that it is there to help spouses who may not have a job or the member was a the only bread winner.  This isn't the case.  Are there other factors that help determine this?  Like overall combined salaries?  Where they lived ie base versus their own house?  Again I'm asking vecause I don't know.
> 
> But as I stated before, the american system of determining who qualifies seems pretty reasonable.



Here's how I look at it, as already mentionned by someone else in this thread: the benfit is intended to assist the deceased member's dependants at going on with their lives while suffering a lesser impact upon their household finances. Helping them relocate etc. Don't forget, whether the wife works or not, it is this member's immediate dependants in his immediate household who will suffer the finacial impact associated with the loss of his income over the remainder of years. Regardless of whether the spouse works or not, their financial QOL and financial income will be the one decreasing due to his death; they may very well be accustomed to living off two incomes and that will not be the case any more and their standard of living will now decrease regardless because of the loss of the deceased's loss of income. This benefit is meant to assist with and defray those financial implications.

The same can not be said for parents residing in another household whom neither were supported by, nor living in the deceased's household; the member was not financially responsible for them. The loss of this member has no financial impact upon their financial situation in the future.

Although both households will certainly experience the loss of QOL and companionship created by the member's loss, the long term financial implications of loss of income are restricted to only one.

My .02 worth.


----------



## armyvern

Crantor said:
			
		

> So is that the definition to which the benefit applies to?  Household dependant?  How about a single soldier taking care of an aging parent? Or a disabled brother?
> 
> I'm asking because I don't know.  If it is defined as a household dependant ok.  Or is it defined by what would be a legal dependant.  for instance a child living fulltime with a parent who is divorced from a service member.  But some people are reasoning that it is there to help spouses who may not have a job or the member was a the only bread winner.  This isn't the case.  Are there other factors that help determine this?  Like overall combined salaries?  Where they lived ie base versus their own house?  Again I'm asking vecause I don't know.
> 
> But as I stated before, the american system of determining who qualifies seems pretty reasonable.



And, here's my take on "treating everyone the same" ...

Imagine the soldier who is married and with kids who receive this benefit. If this goes through and the parents of a single member who were not financially dependant upon him receive it, then it must also be given to the parents of MARRIED service members as well even though the member's immediate household already got it.

Why?? Because it wouldn't be fair either to financially compensate parents of single members who suffered no financial loss while not also compensating a married member's parents too even though they also suffer no financial loss. So, if a single's guys parents receive it even though they suffer no financial implications from his loss of income, so should the married guys parents.

Parents are parents - you can't tell the married member's parents they can't have it just because their son was "married". "Treat all the same", you said that.

The benefit is meant to offest long-term financial implications that would be experienced by the member's dependants who were dependant upon his income at the time of death. It's a whole lot smaller can of worms if we keep it that way.


----------



## Occam

According to the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, which is the legislation which provides for the $250k death benefit:

_57. (1) The Minister may, on application, pay, in accordance with section 59, a death benefit to a member’s *survivor* or a person who was, at the time of the member’s death, *a dependent child *  if 
(a) the member dies as a result of a service related injury or disease; and
(b) the member’s death occurs within 30 days after the day on which the injury occurred or the disease was contracted._

There are very clear definitions as to who constitutes a survivor and dependent child in the legislation.

That's the official legalese on who the $250k is supposed to go to.


----------



## Pusser

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> That $250k is to in theory, move them off base, ...



Not true.  Dependents of deceased members are entitled to a move at public expense as if the member were alive and released.  The $250K is in addition to the moving costs.  Plus, the CF/Brookfield still makes all the arrangements (hires the moving company, books flights, etc.)


----------



## Remius

ArmyVern
Ok, I understand that point of view.  Economic hardship caused by that death isn't the same for say adult parents collecting a pension.

But I am still curious as what is defined as a dependant.  You mentioned household dependant.  I'm pretty sure it isn't the legal definition per se but does that still apply to child of a parent whose mother/father divorced and remarried and suffers no economic hardship as a result.  It just seems very grey about the intent vs. the use.


----------



## Remius

Occam said:
			
		

> According to the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, which is the legislation which provides for the $250k death benefit:
> 
> _57. (1) The Minister may, on application, pay, in accordance with section 59, a death benefit to a member’s *survivor* or a person who was, at the time of the member’s death, *a dependent child *  if
> (a) the member dies as a result of a service related injury or disease; and
> (b) the member’s death occurs within 30 days after the day on which the injury occurred or the disease was contracted._
> 
> There are very clear definitions as to who constitutes a survivor and dependent child in the legislation.
> 
> That's the official legalese on who the $250k is supposed to go to.



That clears that up for me.  Thanks.


----------



## Remius

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, here's my take on "treating everyone the same" ...
> 
> Imagine the soldier who is married and with kids who receive this benefit. If this goes through and the parents of a single member who were not financially dependant upon him receive it, then it must also be given to the parents of MARRIED service members as well even though the member's immediate household already got it.
> 
> Why?? Because it wouldn't be fair either to financially compensate parents of single members who suffered no financial loss while not also compensating a married member's parents too even though they also suffer no financial loss. So, if a single's guys parents receive it even though they suffer no financial implications from his loss of income, so should the married guys parents.
> 
> Parents are parents - you can't tell the married member's parents they can't have it just because their son was "married". "Treat all the same", you said that.
> 
> The benefit is meant to offest long-term financial implications that would be experienced by the member's dependants who were dependant upon his income at the time of death. It's a whole lot smaller can of worms if we keep it that way.



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


----------



## Tank Troll

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


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GAP said:
			
		

> "This is not about money because $250,000, (nor) $250 million is going to bring any of the soldiers back," Dinning said. "It's about treating all fallen soldiers the same, with dignity and respect, regardless of their marital status."



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

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


----------



## captloadie

Pusser said:
			
		

> Not true.  Dependents of deceased members are entitled to a move at public expense as if the member were alive and released.  The $250K is in addition to the moving costs.  Plus, the CF/Brookfield still makes all the arrangements (hires the moving company, books flights, etc.)


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


----------



## tomahawk6

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

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


----------



## armyvern

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

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



I agree with your above.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## GAP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under the old system, the federal government paid only a supplementary death benefit, calculated at two times the member's annual earnings. The cash went to the spouse, or another designated beneficiary of the soldier. If there was no beneficiary, the money would go into the estate.

The $250,000 payment under the new charter was described as an improvement by federal officials, but in order to implement it in 2005-06 they had to narrow the existing definition of eligible survivor.

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

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

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

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

Dinning said the case is not about money.

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

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

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


----------



## OldSolduer

I'll be watching this with interest.


----------



## Occam

GAP said:
			
		

> Under the old system, the federal government paid only a supplementary death benefit, calculated at two times the member's annual earnings. The cash went to the spouse, or another designated beneficiary of the soldier. If there was no beneficiary, the money would go into the estate.



???

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


----------



## OldSolduer

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

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


----------



## Occam

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

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



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

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

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


----------



## OldSolduer

Occam said:
			
		

> SISIP doesn't have anything to do with the VAC Death Benefit, either.  We've got to make sure apples are being compared to apples.
> 
> I'm not sure why the original story referenced the SDB in the first place - it exists regardless of whether Pension Act or NVC is in play.
> 
> The terms of the VAC Death Benefit specify it is to go to surviving spouse/common-law partner and/or surviving dependent child(ren) of a member.  If none exists, then there is no payout; hence the legal challenge that the families of single soldiers are discriminated against on the basis of marital status.



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

Why the VAC decision? To save money?


----------



## PuckChaser

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> To save money?



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


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

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


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

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


----------



## mariomike

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

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


----------



## captloadie

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

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


----------



## George Wallace

captloadie said:
			
		

> As much as I feel for the families, I don't see the _policy_ as being discriminatory. It may not be a good policy, but that is a different story. The stated purpose is to help transition the soldier's immediate family from a military life to a civilian life, due to the loss of income, housing, support network etc. It is not meant to recognize their sacrifice through a financial payout. That being said, if a single soldier has elderly/infirm parents or siblings that he/she is legally responsible for, the money should be paid out in those instances. And hopefully the member made arrangements beforehand in case this happens (seeting up trusts etc.)
> 
> The CF has many programs and monies that discriminate exclude different members based on the situation. Members being medically released receive extra benefits to aid in moving to the civilian side, some of which would also benefit healthy members that are releasing. Officers with degrees are not entitled to educational funding because they already have a BA. We may not agree with the policies necessarily, but I don't think any of us are screaming discrimination.



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


----------



## Occam

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

Another aspect that cannot be ignored are these two scenarios:  

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

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

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


----------



## The Bread Guy

First, this ....


> A discrimination case involving the family of single soldier killed five years ago in Afghanistan was thrown out when Veterans Affairs abruptly declared Cpl. Matthew Dinning had a previously unrecognized common-law spouse and child.
> 
> The revelation shocked his parents and brother, who were challenging the federal government's policy of paying a $250,000 lump-sum death benefit only to the families of married soldiers.
> 
> The case was dismissed by a human rights tribunal last Friday in a written decision, obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> Lincoln Dinning, Matthew's father, said he would never have filed the human rights complaint, which alleged the government discriminated against single soldiers, had there been a spouse in the picture at the outset.
> 
> The decision by Veterans Affairs to recognize Tanya Lowerison as an entitled spouse occurred in June, well after the conclusion of a public hearing into the discrimination case last spring.
> 
> Lawyers for the federal department subsequently argued that there was no basis for the complaint since Matthew Dinning was technically no longer a single soldier.
> 
> The tribunal agreed.
> 
> "I am disappointed by the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dismissing my case, but I am not at all surprised," said Lincoln Dinning, who was required to keep silent about last summer's decision until the commission had ruled ....


Canadian Press, 29 Nov 11

.... now, this:


> The families of at least four unmarried soldiers killed in Afghanistan have stepped forward to file human-rights complaints.
> 
> The relatives allege Veterans Affairs discriminates in favour of married troops in the payment of a $250,000 death benefit, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> The cases, which are at the investigation stage, follow the dismissal last week of a similar complaint by the parents of Cpl. Matthew Dinning, who died in an April 2006 Kandahar roadside bombing.
> 
> A federal human-rights tribunal rejected the complaint of Lincoln and Laurie Dinning because Veterans Affairs abruptly decided to recognize their son's girlfriend as his common-law spouse, technically making him no longer single.
> 
> Errol Cushley, the father of Pte. William Cushley, and Beverley Skalrud, the mother of Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, confirmed they have launched their own challenges of the death stipend, which was instituted as part of an overhaul of veterans benefits in 2006.
> 
> The families of Trooper Jack Bouthillier and Trooper March Diab have launched similar complaints.
> 
> "You have four men killed in the same battle, three of them are paid $250,000, (but) William does not qualify because he is single. It doesn't make any sense to me," said Errol Cushley, who lives near Wallaceburg, Ont.
> 
> "I always understood you couldn't discriminate on those grounds." ....


Canadian Press, 30 Nov 11


----------



## vonGarvin

For fuck's sakes (pardon my use of the Anglo Saxon).

The money, the 250K, is to replace lost wages to the dependent families of the fallen, not some sort of macabre lottery for the wives/brothers/sisters/aunts and other grieving members.


:rage:


----------



## PMedMoe

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The money, the 250K, is to replace lost wages to the dependent families of the fallen, not some sort of macabre lottery for the wives/brothers/sisters/aunts and other grieving members.



Completely agree.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> First, this First, this ....
> 
> 
> 
> A discrimination case involving the family of single soldier killed five years ago in Afghanistan was thrown out when Veterans Affairs abruptly declared Cpl. Matthew Dinning had a previously unrecognized common-law spouse and child.
> 
> The revelation shocked his parents and brother, who were challenging the federal government's policy of paying a $250,000 lump-sum death benefit only to the families of married soldiers.
> 
> The case was dismissed by a human rights tribunal last Friday in a written decision, obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> Lincoln Dinning, Matthew's father, said he would never have filed the human rights complaint, which alleged the government discriminated against single soldiers, had there been a spouse in the picture at the outset.
> 
> The decision by Veterans Affairs to recognize Tanya Lowerison as an entitled spouse occurred in June, well after the conclusion of a public hearing into the discrimination case last spring.
> 
> Lawyers for the federal department subsequently argued that there was no basis for the complaint since Matthew Dinning was technically no longer a single soldier.
> 
> The tribunal agreed.
> 
> "I am disappointed by the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dismissing my case, but I am not at all surprised," said Lincoln Dinning, who was required to keep silent about last summer's decision until the commission had ruled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ........Canadian Press, 29 Nov 11
> 
> .... now, this:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote
> The families of at least four unmarried soldiers killed in Afghanistan have stepped forward to file human-rights complaints.
> 
> The relatives allege Veterans Affairs discriminates in favour of married troops in the payment of a $250,000 death benefit, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> The cases, which are at the investigation stage, follow the dismissal last week of a similar complaint by the parents of Cpl. Matthew Dinning, who died in an April 2006 Kandahar roadside bombing.
> 
> A federal human-rights tribunal rejected the complaint of Lincoln and Laurie Dinning because Veterans Affairs abruptly decided to recognize their son's girlfriend as his common-law spouse, technically making him no longer single.
> 
> Errol Cushley, the father of Pte. William Cushley, and Beverley Skalrud, the mother of Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, confirmed they have launched their own challenges of the death stipend, which was instituted as part of an overhaul of veterans benefits in 2006.
> 
> The families of Trooper Jack Bouthillier and Trooper March Diab have launched similar complaints.
> 
> "You have four men killed in the same battle, three of them are paid $250,000, (but) William does not qualify because he is single. It doesn't make any sense to me," said Errol Cushley, who lives near Wallaceburg, Ont.
> 
> "I always understood you couldn't discriminate on those grounds." ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canadian Press, 30 Nov 11
Click to expand...


Don't we already have a thread dealing with this subject??


----------



## mariomike

"The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41700/post-1028189/topicseen.html#msg1028189


----------



## Occam

Technoviking said:
			
		

> For frig's sakes (pardon my use of the Anglo Saxon).
> 
> The money, the 250K, is to replace lost wages to the dependent families of the fallen, not some sort of macabre lottery for the wives/brothers/sisters/aunts and other grieving members.
> 
> 
> :rage:



I (and VAC) disagree with your description of the award's intent.

From VAC's website:



> _*Disability Award*
> 
> The Disability Award is a one-time, tax-free cash award designed to compensate for the non-economic impacts of a service-related disability such as pain and suffering._



Now I will agree with you that I don't think they had this in mind when they drafted the NVC, but the can of worms has been opened.

If a soldier is injured as a result of military service, he is paid a disability award.  If he dies as a result of military service, is he paid the disability award (which then falls to the estate), or is the spouse paid the disability award?

I think that's the argument you're going to see used here.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1104432--no-equality-in-not-paying-death-benefit-to-single-soldiers-says-father


No equality’ in not paying death benefit to single soldiers, says father

Published On Mon Dec 19 2011
Richard J. BrennanNational Affairs Writer

James Pentland says he finds it despicable that his Canadian soldier son Patrick gave up his life for his country in Afghanistan but in death is treated as a second-class soldier.

Pentland, who was a soldier for 25 years, is adding his voice to those, including the Royal Canadian Legion, calling for Veterans Affairs to start paying out the one-time $250,000 death benefit for single soldiers.
“To give it to the married person, the common-law person and then turn round and tell the family of the single soldier that his life . . . didn’t mean as much. There is no equality there. The single soldier is discriminated against,” Pentland told the Toronto Star in a telephone interview from his home in Geary, N.B.

“I find it insulting and degrading that you and I are even having this conservation. I find this is reprehensible that I have to talk about this because our government is not showing the single soldier the same respect and courtesy . . . the reality comes down to the fact they didn’t do a damn thing to give equal benefits to the family of the single soldiers,” he said.

Trooper Patrick James Pentland, 23, of the Royal Canadian Dragoons based in Petawawa, Ont., was killed when the armoured vehicle he was riding in hit an improvised explosive device (IED) about 38 kilometres west of Kandahar in 2007.
“My wife has never gotten over this . . . she still has her crying sessions,” Pentland said.

While the senior Pentland is waging a one-man battle of Veterans Affairs, the families of at least four other soldiers killed in Afghanistan have filed human-rights complaints, arguing that Veterans Affairs discriminated against their late sons because they were not married.
The federal department claims the death benefit is intended to help families of married soldiers re-establish themselves in civilian life.

“Although other family members, such as parents, also suffer from the loss due to the sudden death of the Canadian Forces member, they do not face the same financial impacts as the spouse/common-law partner and/or dependent children of the Canadian Forces member,” Janice Summerby, a spokeswoman for Veterans Affairs Canada, said in an email statement to the Star.

Summerby added that single soldiers can choose to take out life insurance and make payable, for example, to his or her parents or estate. That kind of insurance can only be obtained through the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) Long Term Disability, a government-directed insurance program for the Canadian Forces.
But the Royal Canadian Legion, representing 340,000 members across the country, said the one-time death benefit is clearly meant to cover pain and suffering, not economic loss, which is covered other benefit packages.

“It is one of the deficiencies that we identified in the new Veterans’ Charter . . . that it is a discriminatory practice that married members receive a death benefit but single members don’t receive a death benefit. The Legion believes that all Canadian forces members killed (in the line of duty) … be granted a death benefit,” Andrea Siew, of the Royal Canadian Legion in Ottawa, told the Star.

Siew said the death benefit is not about financial compensation for the loss of income, “it is an award payment for the non-economic loss associated with pain and suffering. It is very clear in the legislation it’s about that.”


----------



## maniac

The true injustice here is the families of the fallen who were "SINGLE", do not receive this benefit at all.  The only way the death benefit is paid is if they are married or CL and they will even pay it to a child of the fallen.  They will NOT pay it to a soldier who has not declared the above.  I don't know the rationale behind that decision but it is being challenged in the London ON courts by 4 x families of the fallen where this has taken place.


----------



## PMedMoe

maniac said:
			
		

> I don't know the rationale behind that decision but it is being challenged in the London ON courts by 4 x families of the fallen where this has taken place.



I would suggest the rationale is that a single soldier (without spouse or children) does not have anyone dependent on them for their livelihood.  Not saying it's right but check out worker's insurance (at least in Ontario).  Pretty sure there's no provision for parents or siblings.  Only spouse and children.

Edit to add:  See this reply:



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> For fuck's sakes (pardon my use of the Anglo Saxon).
> 
> The money, the 250K, is to replace lost wages to the dependent families of the fallen, not some sort of macabre lottery for the wives/brothers/sisters/aunts and other grieving members.
> 
> 
> :rage:


----------



## vonGarvin

That is all.


----------



## PMedMoe

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That is all.



 :nod:


----------



## vonGarvin

(There was vacant space above what I had typed, which is about all I give a fuck about single persons complaining about not getting the benefits of married persons.)


----------



## mariomike

Their lawyers may be looking at the lobbying for a national $300,000 ( indexed ) Public Safety Officer Compensation (PSOC) LODD benefit: 
"M-100 — June 6, 2011 — Ms. Davies (Vancouver East) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider establishing a federally-funded Canadian public safety officer compensation fund payable to the survivors of a firefighter, police or public safety officer killed, or permanently disabled, in the line of duty."

This would be in addition to the negotiated survivor and disability benefits in the collective agreement.


----------

