The Death Benefit For Single Members Merged Thread

[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]

"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]

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]

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.