• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread

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.
 
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...
 
"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.
 
I think it's a nice gesture
*may none of us need to make a SISIP claim...* heh
 
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. ''
 
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
 
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.
 
while not wanting to belittle the soldier, why is his estate entitled to it?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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..
 
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?
 
I have no idea what I'm talking about. Please look elsewhere for edifying posts on this topic.
 
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?
 
We still have SDB and SISIP.

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

 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top