Disabled veterans must be cared for: Court ruling fortifies campaign criticism of Ottawa's disinterest
Section: The Editorial Page
Outlet: Calgary Herald
Page: A8
**Excerpt**
One would think few Canadians worthier of their neighbours' goodwill than old soldiers living in reduced circumstances as a result of wounds received in service to their country.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was therefore on safe ground just before Christmas, when he pledged a Conservative government would help disabled veterans by reorganizing the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to make it more friendly to claimants.
Just how safe became clear in the last week of December. An Ontario Superior Court ruling on disabled veterans' pensions, called into question federal stewardship of their affairs: Taken with Harper's criticism of VRAB, it points to a pattern of disregard in Ottawa for veterans' best interests.
The court found that interest on pensions held in trust by Ottawa for veterans who, by merit of the severity of their wounds were deemed incompetent to handle their own affairs, had not been added to their accounts since the First World War.
Neither had the federal government tried to maximize their benefit through prudent investment of their money.
A judge has therefore now decided Ottawa owes $4.6 billion in accumulated interest, to 30,000 veterans and their descendants.
The decision will almost certainly be appealed.
If so, a resolution will take years. However, what Harper is proposing to assist disabled veterans dealing with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board could be handled quite simply – and should be, whichever party forms the government after Jan.23.
The board, which considers claims for disability pensions rejected by the Department of Veterans Affairs, is widely criticized for its propensity for "delay, obfuscation, misdirection and pettiness," as one Alberta veteran put it a few months ago, in a letter to the National Post.
Part of the problem is that of the 26-member board of patronage appointees, only four claim any military experience.
Harper has promised to appoint members having a keener appreciation of the circumstances which might have led to a disability: qualified military, and medical personnel, along with veterans' representatives.
This would be a significant step forward, as the existing rules can easily be interpreted to the disadvantage of a claimant.
For instance, if an elderly man with poor hearing served in the artillery, the burden of proof is still upon him to provide documented evidence that his impairment is conclusively linked to his military service, and not merely the result of advancing years.
In theory, such rigour seems an appropriate safeguard for the taxpayers against fraudulent claims.
Harper's proposal, however, recognizes the taxpayers have already been safeguarded once by veterans, and that, where there is doubt, the benefit should be given to the old soldier.
Electorally, it was a smart move, likely to enhance Conservative popularity among the country's 220,000 veterans.
Yet, taking good care of people whose lives have been disrupted in their country's service seems a minimal expression of the Canadian values so often lauded by this government.
It says much about its true understanding of them, that it has taken both an election, and the Ontario Superior Court, to bring its shortcomings on the veterans' affairs file to public notice.
