The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread

[armyvern]

**"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]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.