A House of Commons committee is recommending that Canada’s most seriously disabled veterans get benefits for life, and that soldiers not be medically discharged before Veterans Affairs is ready to care for them.
Those are among the 14 recommendations offered by MPs on the committee following a review of the controversial New Veterans Charter.
But some veterans say the recommendations don’t go far enough.
Former elite sniper Jody Mitic, who lost both of his legs below the knees in Afghanistan, said he was disappointed in the committee’s recommendations.
“The word retroactive isn’t mentioned anywhere,” he said Tuesday. “So anyone injured during pretty much all of Afghanistan may or may not be covered by the new recommendations.”
Although Royal Canadian Legion president Gordon Moore applauded the recommended financial package for soldiers, veterans’ advocates who crunched the numbers say MPs are actually suggesting disabled veterans receive less than they do now.
Currently, injured soldiers leaving the military can receive 75 per cent of their gross income. The veterans committee is proposing thatthey receive 85 per cent of their net income.
MPs also sidestepped the contentious issue of lump sum disability cheques that replaced a system of lifetime payments.
Cpl. Mark Fuchko, who lost both legs in Afghanistan, said he feels that he deserves a lifetime disability pension.
“The award is given for pain and suffering, while my pain and suffering has not ended. It carries on,” he said.
In presenting its report Tuesday, the House committee admitted that its recommendations won’t satisfy everyone.
"All we're asking is for people to look at it as an honest, collective effort by all members of all parties across the political spectrum to get things right," said Conservative MP Laurie Hawn.
"Will it ever be perfect? No, it won't, but we'll continue to try and make it better."
The report was endorsed unanimously by Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats on the veterans committee and presented to Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino. However, the recommendations are not binding on the government.
Fantino ordered the review of the charter after many veterans of the Afghan war and other soldiers complained they were being discharged from military service without adequate benefits and support programs.
In October 2012, a group of Afghan war vets filed a class-action lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that disability payments are decided arbitrarily and that Ottawa is not doing enough to support injured soldiers.
Federal lawyers have told the court the government has no special obligation to returning soldiers and that it cannot be bound by the promises made by past governments.
The House committee was asked to define what the government owes to its soldiers, but veterans say the MPs failed to come back with a definitive answer.
Veterans advocate Sean Bruyea said the committee avoided making a clear, concrete statement on the issue.
Mike Blais, the president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, said Tuesday that he will continue to fight for the rights of injured soldiers, whether they were in the regular forces or the reserves.
“Am I a whiner because I’m standing here for all reservists, demanding that they get the same standard of care? No, we are not whiners and neither are those who are wounded and neither are the reservists who are just demanding equality,” he told a news conference.
“It takes courage to stand in front of this government. It takes courage to be labelled whiners, or malcontents or troublemakers. Yes, it does, but we have a sacred obligation to those who are wounded.”
With a report from CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife and files from The Canadian Press
