1. DECONSTRUCTING SOCIAL POLICY:
THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER
By
MATTHEW LULOFF
Under the supervision of
DR. ALLAN MOSCOVITCH
A research essay submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for PAPM4908 as
credit towards the degree of Bachelor of Public Affairs and Policy Management
[Honours]
Arthur Kroeger College of Public Affairs
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
May 2013

2. 1
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Allan Moscovitch for his guidance, patience and candid remarks
through every phase of writing this paper. As this work is near and dear to my heart, Allan
was integral in maintaining my focus.
Thank you to my lovely fiancée and best friend, Laura Mullen, for her enduring patience, love
and support.
Thank you to MPs Sean Casey and Hon. John McKay for allowing me to work in your offices
and to see the policy evaluation process first-hand. You both work hard for soldiers, veterans
and their families and I have truly enjoyed my time with both of you.
Thank you to MP Peter Stoffer for your encouragement and work on behalf of those who have
served.
Thank you to all of the veterans advocates that made this work worth every minute and for
all of your encouragement and willingness to help at every turn.
Thank you to Elaine Rouleau at Arthur Kroeger College. I’m not sure how I have managed to
write so many words but cannot find the proper ones to express how much I appreciate you
and your hard work.
I dedicate this work to the men and women of 2PPCLI I served with in Afghanistan; be it in
Recce Platoon, Bravo Company, Charlie Company or otherwise, you will find no greater
friends and no worse enemies. Scott Shipway, Andrew Grenon, Josh Roberts and the rest of my
fallen comrades, I hope I am making you proud.

3. 2
Table of Contents
Chapter I
Introduction … 3
Chapter II
Theoretical Framework … 11
The Political Economy of Neoliberalism … 12
Neoliberalism and Veteran’s Policies …14
The Social Construction of Neoliberalism … 17
Chapter III
Provisions Under the Pension Act … 24
Provisions Under the New Veterans Charter … 25
Substantial cuts made to the vital services severely injured veterans … 27
Stakeholder reaction … 28
The NVC: An expedient return to work … 33
Chapter IV
The New Veterans Charter as a Neoliberal Policy … 44
The Political Economy of the New Veterans Charter … 45
The Social Construction of Veterans … 47
The Social Construction of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter: Better than bad is
still worse than good … 48
Chapter V
Conclusion … 52
References … 58

4. 3
Chapter I
Introduction
Canada has a long and storied history with a reputation for punching above our
collective weight in the international community. From Banting’s discovery of insulin as a
treatment for diabetes to Lester B. Pearson’s brilliant peace brokering in his handling of
the Suez Crisis, Canada asserts her relevance by demonstrating an ability to innovate,
adapt and overcome despite the bleakest of odds. This is especially true of our military
history.
Two hundred years ago, fifty-five years before Confederation, a rag-tag militia of
British and French colonists assisted by Indigenous and Metis warriors fought off a
coordinated and significantly larger American invading force maintaining the Canadian-
American border. One hundred and thirty nine years later, at the Battle of Kapyong in
Korea, Canada demonstrated unrelenting resolve while holding off a Chinese and Korean
brigade for three days; an amazing feat considering the Canadian contingent was
demonstrably smaller and suffered seemingly endless casualties. To this day, the Canadian
Forces are highly regarded as amongst the best-trained and effective organizations in the
world. However, when the mission is over and the soldier returns to civilian life, a new
mission lays before the returning soldier, that of re-integrating into the society he or she
fought to serve while making sense of their experiences in order to wield them to their
advantage in the often difficult task of establishing an existence beyond the total institution
of military service. The recently restored civilian, “for whom everything (was) provided by

5. 4
the state, (has lost), to a certain extent, his sense of personal responsibility” (McKelvey
Bell, 1919). If it is the Government who is responsible for this transformation from civilian
to soldier, should it not then be responsible for the transition in reverse? Most would
agree, however the chasm between what the government is mandated to provide and what
provisions are available to veterans is long, and wide, and growing longer and wider still.
Despite the contemporary and extensive media coverage regarding benefits
available to veterans of the Canadian Forces, caring for our injured veterans through
disability pensions coupled with vocational training is certainly not a pioneering or novel
idea. During the First World War, the Tory-led Unionist government of Sir Robert Borden
passed the War Measures Act creating the Department of Soldier’s Civil Re-establishment.
Borden’s government proclaimed it as and indication of Canada’s strong commitment to
those who had sacrificed life and limb for the Commonwealth:
"The men by whose sacrifice and endurance the free institutions of
Canada will be preserved must be re-educated where necessary and re-
established on the land or in such pursuits or vocations as they may
desire to follow. The maimed and the broken will be protected, the
widow and the orphan will be helped and cherished. Duty and decency
demand that those who are saving democracy shall not find democracy a
house of privilege, or a school of poverty and hardship" (Veterans Affairs
Canada - Canadian Forces Advisory Council, 2004)
The newly minted Department developed and delivered comprehensive programmes
designed to support the injured financially, foster professional and personal development
through education and vocational rehabilitation, with the end goal of returning them to
some semblance of self-sufficiency. The programmes were, by most measures, heralded as
a complete success. At the time, the Canadian Medical Association Journal reported:
“as soon as the returned soldier who is crippled or rendered partially
disabled by disease or injury can be made to realize that life still holds

6. 5
interests for him in the manufacturing, the educational, or the
commercial world, and that there is a department which is ready to do
everything necessary to help him overcome his handicap, so soon will a
step forward have been made in connection with his rehabilitation and
his return to useful civilian life. The knowledge that he can still be self-
supporting in spite of the handicap of the loss of limbs or of other serious
defects, assists him to regain pride in his own personal effort and
encourages him to make a strong endeavour to become self-supporting”
(McKelvey Bell, 1919)
Certainly many things have changed since 1919, and the Government of Canada’s
unfettered commitment to the injured soldier as demonstrated above is, quite regrettably,
one of them.
Canada’s decision to support the NATO International Security Assistance Force
mission to Afghanistan was an undertaking the likes of which the Canadian Forces had not
seen since the Korean War, both in the size and scope of the operation, and in the amount
of casualties incurred in combat. From the time the first Canadian boots hit the hot sands of
Kandahar to the declaration of the end of combat operations, 158 flag-draped coffins have
returned to Canada to be received by grieving families. The impact on those who fought
selflessly and tirelessly alongside international allies and survived the horrors of war is
without a doubt immeasurable.
In addition, many Canadian forces members returned home with injuries including
some who returned home with gruesome physical injuries, and others who returned
haunted by the intensity and vicious violence of the conflict; both types of injuries afflicted
some soldiers. The brave men and women who stood face-to-face with the Taliban and
other armed factions across southern Kandahar were prepared to give everything, up to
and including their lives, for their country. On their return, their country has an obligation
to them as mandated by the contemporary incarnation of veteran’s legislation, the

7. 6
Department of Veteran’s Affairs Act, which charges the Minister with “the care, treatment or
re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces” (The
Governnment of Canada, 1984).
With an average of two thousand eight hundred troops deployed at any given time,
Canada’s mission in Afghanistan was producing a constant flow of new clients for the
Department. In 2005, while Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, Stephen Harper
proclaimed to an audience of Legionnaires,
“all too often we hear stories of veterans who are ignored or
disrespected by government. What a shameful way to treat men and
women who risked their lives to defend Canada. This shame will end
with the election of a new (Conservative) government” (CTV News,
2005)
But the shame did not end when Mr Harper became Prime Minister in February 2006. The
first Tory government in over a decade, seemingly delivering on its promise with fervour
and without delay, produced the New Veteran’s Charter (NVC) exactly two months after
forming government, created an office for a veteran’s ombudsman, and introduced major
changes to the financial assistance available to injured clients of the department. At the
time, Harper hailed the legislation as a sign his government was “begin (ning) to do the
right thing for Canada’s servicemen and women” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2006). The
Minister of Veterans Affairs, The Honourable Greg Thompson proclaimed,
“The New Veterans Charter is the most profound transformation of
Veterans' services and benefits since the end of the Second World War. It
provides all the fundamental programs and services that CF Veterans
and their families have told us they need as they transition from military
to civilian life” (Ibid).
Even the officially non-partisan chief of the Canadian Forces, General Rick Hillier touted
the NVC as “Canada’s promise to invest in (veterans) futures” (Ibid). However it was the

8. 7
Minister of Veterans Affairs who was closest to the results in declaring the piece of
legislation a transformation.
The government was presenting the NVC as an improvement to the antiquated
Pension Act, however, the major changes represented a significant decrease in the amount
of financial assistance available to injured veterans at a time when hundreds of soldiers
were returning home afflicted with either or both physical injuries and Occupational Stress
Injuries (OSI) (Aiken & Buithenhuis, 2011). In response, Michael Blais, CD, founded the
Canadian Veterans Advocacy and organized an Annual Canadian Veterans National Day of
Protest, attracting thousands of angry veterans to federal riding offices and to Parliament
Hill in 2010 (Canadian Veterans Advocacy, 2012). The chief complaint regarding the new
legislation was the decision to remove the Life-time Disability Pension mandated by the
now-defunct Pension Act and replace it with a Lump Sum Disability Award. The common
argument advocating for this change is that lump sum awards provide substantial and
immediate support to the veteran. The trouble is the lump sum payment does not provide
the guaranteed income security needed for veterans to re-establish themselves without
financial strain. If the veteran is well-versed in investment banking and has access to the
best advice possible, perhaps this option would be viable, however this scenario is highly
unlikely considering the social circumstances of the modern veteran.
In response, the government introduced the Enhanced New Veteran’s Charter Act,
addressing some of the issues raised by concerned veterans and modifying the Lump Sum
Disability Award. Rather than reverting to monthly pensions as demanded by Canadian
Veterans Advocacy and many individual veterans, the government opted to change
payment options for the Award to include a monthly instalment option, with the reasoning

9. 8
that veterans had difficulty managing a large sum of money (Veterans Affairs Canada,
2010). Still, the total amount awarded to the recipient would mirror the amount of the
lump sum, giving very little incentive to prolong the pay out. In fact, the Government of
Canada was scaling back the fiscal benefits to injured veterans, describing the changes as
‘enhancements’ and ‘improvements,’ purporting to be addressing the concerns regarding
the NVC while only making token changes to the Act in order to give the impression of
understanding and to placate the affected veterans. Additional cuts to the Veteran’s Affairs
budget were announced in the 2012 Federal Budget while the government maintains its
unbridled “support” for those who fought for Canada. While these changes are presented
by the government as a means to speed up the process by making large cuts to the
“rampant bureaucracy” within the Department of Veterans Affairs, indeed having less
direct support for veterans by closing District Offices and slashing staff would tend to
provoke the opposite result (The Canadian Press , 2012). Yvan Thauvette, president of the
Union for Veterans Affairs Employees has countered "People are overwhelmed in a lot of
district offices. Service delivery, they want to cut positions and most of those positions are
frontline staff people. Do you believe that the service will be the same? No it won't" (CBC
News , 2012). The EQUITAS Society, a Veterans Advocacy group currently engaged in a
class-action lawsuit against the government in response to the Enhanced New Veterans
Charter has identified the services currently available to veterans as “woefully inadequate”
(Equitas Society, 2012). Can cutting resources and funding while lowering the financial
support to Canadian Forces veterans truly be an enhancement to the services available to
them? How can recent changes represent both a reduction and an improvement to these
services?

10. 9
In May 2012, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs released its latest report,
piously titled Improving Services to Improve Quality of Life for Veterans and Their Families.
The Report contains seventeen (17) recommendations, most of which contain weak
language including “assess the potential benefits… examine… maintaining current
practices… review… continue to work,” and so on (Standing Committee on Veterans
Affairs, 41st Parliament, 2012). In the Supplementary Opinion of the Official Opposition,
New Democratic Party of Canada members of the committee expressed “very serious
concerns with its content” (Ibid, p. 71). Not surprisingly, the NDP, in chorus with the Union
for Veterans Affairs Employees, stated,
“New Democrats are very concerned that the cuts to staff (approximately
804 VAC staff), the elimination of nine regional offices across the
country, and proposals for private sector/alternate service… will
seriously impact the quality of service to veterans and their families. The
Official Opposition does not believe that the Department of Veterans
Affairs can maintain the same standard of care or programs and services
with fewer staff and resources” (Ibid)
In its Minority Report, the Liberal Party of Canada was scathing in its criticism of the
process of the committee and the content of its Report. The Party’s only sitting member of
the Committee, Sean Casey (MP Charlottown) pointed out that many of the
recommendations lacked substantial or sufficient action, opting only for “further study”
(Ibid, p. 75). Casey states,
“The Liberal Party is disappointed with the calibre and generality of this
Report. Such an extensive study provided an opportunity for the
Committee to make impactful recommendations to the Department of
Veterans Affairs. The recommendations however, as well as the report in
general, display that the majority of the Committee is far more interested
in congratulating the government, than in providing advice and
constructive criticism to improve services to the veterans of Canada”
(Ibid)

11. 10
With such vehement criticism from stakeholders, employee representatives and committee
members, how does the government continue to mask deep cuts as improvements?
Research in this policy area is incredibly important. Reducing Veterans benefits is
shirking Canada’s responsibility to care for those who signed a contract of unlimited
liability and have incurred injuries while conducting combat operations in defence of the
Crown. At a time when the Government of Canada has demanded so much of its Canadian
Forces with the decade-long war in Afghanistan, humanitarian efforts in Haiti, increased
military presence in the Arctic, security efforts for the Olympic Games, response to
domestic emergencies including flooding in Manitoba, peacekeeping operations in the
Middle East, Africa and Asia, it is not fulfilling its responsibilities as outlined in the
Department of Veterans Affairs Act.

12. 11
Chapter II
Theoretical Framework
The Pension Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/) and the New
Veterans Charter (http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/information-canadian-forces/services-
benefits) are social policies as they directly pertain to the welfare of a microcosm of
Canadian society, namely former members of the Canadian Forces. The transition between
the two policies has garnered considerable backlash from stakeholder groups including the
Canadian Veterans Advocacy (http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/) and EQUITAS
(http://equitassociety.ca/), both representing memberships of affected veterans. This
opposition is indicative that this transition has incited a social problem. Social problems
consist of "the activities of groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect
to some putative conditions” (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977, p. 415). Contemporary veterans
policy is based on claims making, just as protesting veterans are themselves in an act of
making claims, which include
“demanding services, filling out forms, lodging complaint, filing lawsuits,
calling press conferences, writing letters of protest, passing resolutions,
publishing exposes, placing ads in newspapers, supporting or opposing
some governmental practice or policy…” (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977, p. 79)
As a bureaucratic institution, the Department of Veterans Affairs keeps records,
administers programs and services and engages with clients using forms, which are
completed by department staff and those demanding services. If a client of Veterans Affairs
has concerns, he may seek redress in a variety of forms, most if not all of which are
mentioned by Spector & Kitsuse above. As this case pertains to a social policy that has
provoked a social problem, approaching policy analysis from a social perspective is crucial

13. 12
to understanding both the implications of this policy, but also to understanding how this
policy is presented as beneficial to society. Analysis using Political Economy and Social
Constructionism theory achieves both of these objectives.
The Political Economy of Neoliberalism
Political Economy recognizes that “actual policies are often quite different than
optimal policies, the latter defined as subject to technical and informational, but not
political constraints” (Drazen, 2000, p. 7). In this sense, political constraints refer to limits
incited by conflict of interest and the solutions available within these limits (Ibid).
Broadly, Political Economy is the study of how the allocation of scarce resources, guided by
politics and power, informed by ideology, affects the range of choices available, which
subsequently affect society. As conflict is inherent in Political Economy, the works of Marx
have invariably influenced the paradigm.
Marxist political economy is underpinned by the assertion that “an economy driven
by production for profit is systemically irrational” (McNally, 2011). Marx explains that
through over-investment, capitalists undermine any possible profitability within the
economy (Ibid). In the incessant and arbitrary ambition for profits, capitalists tend to
produce far more than is demanded by the market leading to price wars while
undercutting competition, which in turn cuts into or completely destroys the possibility for
profitmaking, the supposed raison d’etre for the capitalist marketplace (Ibid). As the
easiest way to produce profits is to exploit labourers, capitalists rely on large pools of
surplus labour (the unemployed or underemployed) that must sell their labour at a
reduced rate in desperation for a subsistence wage (Ibid). As labourers do not own the

14. 13
means of production, they are forced to sell their labour on the very same market in which
capitalist society acquires virtually all goods and services required to survive. As goods and
services are sold on the capitalist market in order to garner maximum profits, so too are
labourers exploited in order to maximise profits. Therefore, if you cannot participate in the
market by finding someone to buy your labour, you risk being unable to purchase the
goods necessary for survival (Ibid).
In the contemporary period, the predominant political, economic and ideological
framework is neoliberalism. Its policies are not only championed in the countries of the
West, but are encouraged and exported by international organizations and treaties
including the World Trade Organization, The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, The International Monetary Fund, The European Union, The North American
Free Trade Agreement and The Trans-Pacific Partnership. As the dominant ideological
paradigm, neoliberalism has become hegemonic in its perceived incontrovertibility. David
Harvey contends that
“neoliberalism is above all a project to restore class dominance to sectors
that saw their fortunes threatened by the ascent of social democratic
endeavours in the aftermath of the Second World War. Although
neoliberalism has had limited effectiveness as an engine for economic
growth, it has succeeded in channelling wealth from subordinate classes
to dominant ones and from poorer to richer countries. This process has
entailed the dismantling of institutions and narratives that promoted
more egalitarian distributive measures in the preceding era” (Harvey,
2007)
Neoliberalism is underpinned by the theory that overall well-being is improved by the
state limiting itself to providing strong institutional structures and protective services
(police, armed forces) in order to preserve property rights, the integrity of money,
individual freedoms, free markets and free trade (Ibid). Unregulated Free trade opens

15. 14
labour markets to the world, lowering high wages in developed countries and exploiting
cheap labour in developing countries (Bhagwati, 1994). Neoliberalism concerns itself it
creating a market in every area, including areas traditionally excluded from market activity
and,
“if markets do not exist (in areas such as education, health care, social
security, or environmental pollution), then they must be created, by state
action if necessary. But beyond these tasks the state should not venture.
State interventions in markets (once created) must be kept to a bare
minimum because the state cannot possibly possess enough information
to second-guess market signals (prices) and because powerful interests
will inevitably distort and bias state interventions (particularly in
democracies) for their own benefit” (Harvey, 2007)
Neoliberalism has also been defined as “a more virulent form of capitalism (…) with a
growth pattern based on soaring inequality, rising global poverty, and increased human
insecurity” (McNally, 2011). Elaborating upon this broader definition, and for the purposes
of this paper, neoliberal policies have been defined as “clamping down on the growth of
inflation and the growth of social entitlements; loading negative effects (…) onto
vulnerable groups” (Connell, 2010).
Neoliberalism and Veteran’s Policies
Canadian Forces airmen and airwomen, soldiers and sailors swear an oath of
service upon initiation and in doing so sign a contract of unlimited liability. The concept of
unlimited liability refers to how “the professional soldier- and by definition sailor and
airperson- is unlimited in his or her military responsibilities and, if necessary, must offer
up his or her life in the achievement of the mission goal” (Bercuson, 2004). The
Government of Canada, by engaging in the war in Afghanistan, invoked this pillar of service
and, as would be expected in a violent counter-insurgency, casualties of all types were

16. 15
taken. The act of signing such a contract, giving up basic rights and entering into combat
creates an entire vulnerable class of servicemen and women. Upon returning home,
soldiers afflicted with horrific physical and/or psychological injuries become substantially
vulnerable, more so when their injuries prevent them from preforming their regular
duties. Prolonged injury leads to release from the Forces, all the while inhibiting the sale of
their labour and preventing them from participating in the economy.
Reductions in Veteran’s social benefits from this point of view are about loosening
the social safety net once available to veterans and replacing it with an incentive-based
approach to healing. What this means will be made clearer in the next chapter, but the key
point is that one purpose of the New Veterans Charter is replace state liability for the
consequences of state action, with cash payments, the purpose of which is to terminate
state liability. Arguably, the market approach has benefitted society as a whole. However,
private health care is another matter. Many authors have made the point that market based
health care makes the enjoyment of good health a consumer commodity often inaccessible
to many members of society. For this reason, it appears that Canadians are resistant to the
reprivatisation of health care, even naming Tommy Douglas, the founder of public health
care, as the greatest Canadian. A recent US example may serve to illuminate the approach
of the Veterans Charter.
Recently, the Los Angeles Times ran a story illustrating the troubles of Joyce, a 60-
year-old diabetic who works for a church and does charity work in Africa (Stone D. J.,
2012). Understandably, the church does not offer health insurance. As the free-market
approach deals with incentives it is important to note that “insurers know that diabetics
like Joyce are much more likely to become ill and generate expensive bills, and the free

17. 16
market incentivizes them to identify high-risk individuals and exclude them” (Ibid). When
the predominant ideology encourages the exclusion of groups most disadvantaged in
society, this approach can only been seen as a further disenfranchisement of these groups.
It is also counter-intuitive to incentivize healing, a process which takes a natural and often
slow course. At the same time, the purpose of the change is to reduce costs, which is
consistent with the approach of neoliberalism. Ironically, what the government would not
want to try with Medicare they are undertaking with the care of veterans.
By removing the term “benefit” and replacing it with “award,” the new Veterans
Charter ensures that injured veterans are no longer considered entitled to appropriate
medical care and support payments in case of physical or mental injury. Instead they are to
receive “awards” contingent on the goodwill of the department. Moreover, veterans are
placed in a position where they may be expected to recover and resume economic activity
before the Lump-sum Disability Award funds have depleted. That is, veterans unable to
secure an income quickly and who have not been provided with income replacement will
live on the Disability Award until they find gainful employment, or until the Disability
Award has run out.
Whereas the traditional financial support provided to injured veterans in the
Pension Act as described in Chapter 1 provided predictable, lifelong financial support as
well as vocational retraining, the lump sum places responsibility for recovery in the hands
of the individual, essentially making it possible for the government to abdicate from any
obligation as an active partner in the treatment, rehabilitation and support of those who
have served their country. This severely limits both the time and resources available to the
injured veteran, further burdening an already vulnerable member of society, and by

18. 17
extension, the members of his or her family who will be obligated to provide the care and
support which the government is no longer going to provide. These limitations create a
hostile environment in which to recover and is neither conducive to the recovery which
the program claims to promote nor the wellbeing of the veteran it purports to serve. Just as
neoliberalism encourages more productivity with fewer resources, the NVC imposes
unrealistic goals and truncated timeframes while providing substantially less financial
support. The very principles upon which the Pension Act was based, enduring financial
support coupled with vocational retaining with the goal of a meaningful return to self-
sufficiency, are undermined or completely discarded with the passing of the New Veterans
Charter into law.
The Social Construction of Neoliberalism
The Social Constructionist model deals with how political ideas and opinions are
‘constructed’ using the connotation of language and framing the discussion surrounding,
and the individual positions within, a policy (Stone D. , Policy Paradox, 1997). The Social
Constructionist model pays particular attention to how policy ideas are perceived by the
public. It explains that the strength of support for such policies depends on how political
actors use language and connotation to evoke desired responses and the framing of issues
to change public perception. The use of language is important to consider as it has serious
implications for how the public reacts to proposed policies.
Many linguistic tactics can be employed in the social construction of a policy area,
the most common being framing and branding. Branding in the policy sense is the strategic
use of language to define a topic, policy, situation, or actor in the public mind (Cosgrove,

19. 18
2007). Branding relies heavily on influencing perception and manipulating public opinion.
Effective campaigns can have lasting and decidedly substantial results. Framing is
essentially narrowing the terms of debate or analysis of a particular policy. By focusing on
a small, particular piece of a causal chain, political actors can determine what the ‘cause’ of
a situation is and subsequently offer a list of alternative policies to remedy the problem
(Stone D. , 1997). Framing simplifies issues, and focuses the public on the chosen issue,
solution, and outcome. This undermines the rational decision-making process (Ibid). From
this point of view, the New Veteran’s Charter (NVC) is socially constructed as a modernised
solution to the complex needs of the newest generation of combat veterans. It is purported
to be an “enhancement” when it is, in fact, a reduction. By coining the NVC as a “living
document,” we are encouraged to overlook its many shortcomings with the qualification
that it can be modified at a later date. By replacing “benefits” with “awards,” the
government is facilitating a fundamental shift in the way we approach veterans benefits;
these benefits are no longer entitlements, they are hand-outs given to those deemed
deserving. By using the word award, the government suggests that the veteran is being
honoured.
Social construction is not limited to policy, but extends to the target groups
themselves. Schneider and Ingram, well regarded as the “foremost theorists of target
groups” contend “the social construction of target populations has a powerful influence on
public officials and shapes both the policy agenda and the actual policy design” (Stone D. ,
2005, p. ix; Schneider & Ingram, 1993, p. 334). The social construction of target
populations as described by Schneider and Ingram
“refers to (1) the recognition of the shared characteristics that distinguish
a target population as socially meaningful and (2) the attribution of

20. 19
specific, valence-oriented values, symbols, and images to the
characteristics. Social constructions are stereotypes about particular
groups of people that have been created by politics, culture, socialization,
history, the media, literature, religion and the like” (Schneider & Ingram,
1993)
These stereotypes have been categorized by Schneider and Ingram and illustrated by a
bivariate table which groups populations by level of power: weak or strong, and by types of
constructions: positive or negative (Ibid). For example, groups considered having strong
power and positive construction, labelled “advantaged,” include the elderly, business,
scientists and veterans (Ibid). Populations with weak power and positive construction,
labelled “dependents,” include children, mothers and the disabled (Ibid). Populations with
strong power but negative construction, labelled “contenders,” include the rich, big unions,
minorities (in certain circles), cultural elites and the moral majority (Ibid). Finally,
populations with weak power and negative construction, labelled “deviants,” include
criminals, drug addicts, communists, the unpatriotic and gangs (Ibid).

21. 20
(Schneider & Ingram, 1993)
Public officials implicitly use this framework to construct certain groups as
“deserving” which has two effects on policies targeted to benefit these groups. First, the
targeted group will respond favourably to the policy and second, other groups will respond
positively to the policy as it is benefitting these “deserving” people (Ibid, p. 336). Despite
the appearance of conclusiveness and endurance within these categories, Schneider and
Ingram allow “dramatic events will often serve as catalysts for changes in social
constructions” (Ibid, p. 343). This is precisely what has happened in the case of veterans.
Military servicemen and women have been disproportionately drawn from the middle and
lower classes in recent years (Lutz, 2008). It is little wonder that injured veterans have
become categorized and treated as “dependents” within this framework and the shift from
strong to weak power might be attributed to the shift in military demographics. When

22. 21
examining the qualities of dependent groups, parallels between the framework and the
administration of the New Veterans Charter emerge. Policy tools for dependent groups as
described by Schneider and Ingram illustrate this:
“Subsidies will be given, but eligibility requirements often involve labelling
(sic) and stigmatizing recipients. (…) Outreach programs will be less
common, and many programs will require clients to present themselves to
the agency in order to receive benefits. Welfare programs even for persons
perceived as deserving, such as college students, the disabled, or the
unemployed, usually do not seek out eligible persons but rely on those
who are eligible to make their case to the agency itself. Symbolic and
hortatory tools will commonly be used for dependent groups even when
the pervasiveness of the problem would suggest that more direct
intervention is needed. Groups in the dependent category will not usually
be encouraged or given support to devise their own solutions to problems
but will have to rely on agencies to help them” (Schneider & Ingram, 1993)
The stigmas that exist both within and outside the military regarding injuries, most notably
the diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, as well as the process for receiving
benefits under the New Veterans Charter are well documented and will be discussed at
length in the next chapters. The passive approach to program implementation described
above has become the hallmark of the New Veterans Charter and has drawn significant
criticism from media, stakeholder groups and veterans themselves. By employing the
techniques of social construction of target groups, the justification for the policy tools
engaged by the New Veterans Charter can be highlighted and used to illustrate why the
approach to veterans pensions has changed since the Pension Act was enacted. Through
employing this approach, this paper will emphasize how the veteran has been recast from
“advantaged” to “dependent”, a change that has been mirrored in policy.
In synthesising these two frameworks, the all-important questions ‘how’ and ‘why’
can be answered regarding the thesis statement. The Social Constructionist model reveals

23. 22
how policies and target groups are framed and branded to receive public support and the
Political Economy model reveals whom truly benefits, which are truly liable, and thus why
a certain policy was used to deal with a problem, either real or contrived. In this particular
case, it will be argued, that although veterans were completely entitled by convention to
the benefits received under the Pension Act, receiving a wage without labour undermines
the neoliberal and capitalist agenda as no labour is being performed and there is no
incentive to return to employment and become self-supporting. . Provisions under the NVC
are in place to incentivise short recovery times and a return to market activity with
complete disregard for the actual mental or physical wellbeing of the veteran. Additionally,
the government and society have recast veterans as “dependents,” and the social
constructionist model informs how direct government intervention, however pervasive a
case may be made, is discouraged in favour of a passive, individualistic approach. This
synthesis of frameworks, coupled with the concept of neoliberalism provides for a
congruent and comprehensive analysis of this policy shift.
It is my contention in this thesis that
1) The New Veterans Charter is an archetypal neoliberal policy representing a
significant reduction in fiscal benefits allotted to injured veterans of the Canadian Forces.
The Conservative government has made the claim the Charter is enhancing and improving
services available.
2) In presenting the NVC, the government has employed techniques to shift injured
veterans from their position as “deserving” to dependent and therefore to reduce the
benefits available to them to provide an incentive to return to employment and terminate
government liability

24. 23
3) Not only has the government severely reduced the fiscal benefits received by
clients of the Department of Veterans Affairs but it is also my contention that the benefits
currently available are insufficient to provide support and assistance to veterans who are
affected by their participation in the war.
4) Lastly, it is my contention that the Government of Canada, in providing
insufficient veterans benefits, is in breach of the contract it signs on behalf of the Crown
with each and every soldier entering the Forces and into armed combat.

25. 24
Chapter III
Provisions under the Pension Act
The Pension Act was enacted in 1919 in order to care for ill and injured soldiers returning
from World War I, their families and the families of the deceased. (Government of Canada,
2004). The Pension Act begins with a preamble explaining,
“the provisions of this Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted
to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and
Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of
the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military
service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled” (Government of
Canada, 2003)
This language recognises the obligation of the Government of Canada, on behalf of all
Canadians, to provide for those who have sacrificed on their behalf and in making
decisions regarding compensation, to interpret the provisions liberally in the spirit of the
preamble. The Pension Act provided for a monthly, life-long, non-taxable Disability
Pension to be paid to every applicant that has sustained an injury serving during a war or
in a special duty area. In recognition of the financial burden of dependents, veterans
provided for under the Pension Act received an additional proportion of the Disability
Pension for a spouse or common-law partner and for each child the veteran cares for.
Similar provisions were in place for spouses and children of soldiers killed while serving
during a war or special duty area including contingencies for unforeseen circumstances.
On top of the base pension paid to disabled veterans, the Pension Act contained
additional provisions including the Exceptional Incapacity Allowance and Attendance
Allowance. The Exceptional Incapacity Allowance was paid to those who live with a
condition that leaves them in a state that has reduced their ability to enjoy their lives or

26. 25
has shortened their lifespan. The legislation is worded very generally and makes reference
to this generality as it pertains to the liberal interpretation in the preamble. The
Attendance Allowance provided up to $11,196.96 (2003) for the hiring of a support
worker in the case of complete incapacitation and just over five hundred dollars in extra
money for wear and tear on clothing inherent with amputations.
Although no major vocational rehabilitation programs existed within the Pension
Act, these services would have been redundant as the Service Income Security Insurance
Plan (www.cfpsa.com/en/AboutUs/Sisipfs/Pages/default.aspx) provided for them and is
available to every serving member of the Canadian Forces. The Service Income Security
Insurance Plan (SISIP) is administered by the Department of National Defence’s Canadian
Forces Personnel and Family Support Services and provides several financial services to
Canadian Forces Members and veterans. SISIP’s programs include Life and Disability
Insurance, Long-Tem Disability Programs, Vocational Rehabilitation Services, and Financial
Planning, Counselling, and Education. While the Pension Act continues to be the relevant
legislation for those injured prior to 2005, three years into the War in Afghanistan, the
Government enacted the New Veterans Charter and the benefits as outlined by the Pension
Act ceased to be applicable.
Provisions Under the New Veterans Charter
First introduced in 2005, the New Veterans Charter sought to modernise veterans’
benefits. Whereas the Pension Act language was very general and called for a liberal
reading, the New Veterans Charter or Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-
establishment and Compensation Act includes no such clause and is very specific. The NVC

27. 26
provides Rehabilitation Services and Vocational Assistance, an Earnings Loss Benefit,
the Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit, the Permanent Impairment Allowance,
and the Disability Award. The Government describes each as follows:
1. Rehabilitation Services and Vocational Assistance
“Three types of rehabilitation services are available: Medical, Psycho-social,
Vocational:
The rehabilitation process begins as soon as you and your case manager meet – it is
important for us to get to know you and your family and for you to get to know us.
Next, your case manager will work with you in identifying your goals and
challenges.
The resulting rehabilitation plan will outline services and benefits you will need,
identify local service providers and provide time lines to guide you. You may receive
help in many ways, depending on your needs. Here are a few examples:
Consultations with specialized medical practitioners
- Medications or physiotherapy
- Pain management
- Psychiatric treatment
- Counselling for you and your family by a psychologist or social worker
- Addictions counselling
- Occupational therapy
- Career-related counselling and evaluation
- Financial Support for training and related costs such as child care
- Help to find a job
- Help in returning to the workplace (for example, a gradual return-to-work
program)” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013)
2. Earnings Loss Benefit
“An income replacement program that ensures your income does not fall below
75% of your gross pre-release military salary. This benefit is taxable and is payable
while you are taking part in the rehabilitation or vocational assistance
program. The Earnings Loss Benefit will ensure that you have a total pre-tax
income of at least $40,000 per year (with the exception of some reservists)” (Ibid)
3. Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit
“A tax-free payment payable if you have completed the Rehabilitation Program and
you are able to work but have not been able to find a job or have a low-paying job.
Application forms can be obtained from your case manager”(Ibid)

28. 27
4. Permanent Impairment Allowance
“A monthly taxable allowance payable if you suffer from lost job opportunities
because you are permanently and severely impaired” (Ibid)
5. Disability Award
“The Disability Award is designed to provide you with an immediate financial
support if you have been injured while serving our country. In addition, you may
also qualify for additional allowances. Benefits for your survivors are also
available.” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012)
Substantial cuts made to the vital services severely injured veterans need
When comparing the provisions for injured veterans under the Pension Act
(http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/) to those in the New Veterans Charter (NVC),
it is apparent that a significant decrease to the benefits available to Canadian Forces
veterans is mandated by the NVC.
Take, for example, the care of a severely disabled veteran. He or she is without a
doubt an incredible encumbrance in every fashion. There are likely to be significant
mental, physical, emotional and most especially, financial stresses. The New Veterans
Charter completely removes the Attendant Care Allowance, crucial to the support of the
most seriously disabled, forcing veterans to pay themselves for this costly but vital
provision, despite the fact that their injuries are service-related (Ibid). This financial
burden might not be as difficult to bear, if it weren’t for further cuts directly affecting those
with dependents. The Pension Act also provided financial support to children and spouses
who often become the primary caregivers and are certain now to fill this role with the cut
of the Attendant Care Allowance. Compounding this burden, the New Veterans Charter
completely removes all compensations for dependents (Ibid, p.29, 40). Furthermore,

29. 28
whereas the Pension Act delivered tax-free assistance to injured veterans for life, the NVC
truncates the benefit programme, ending all services at age 65, when veterans become
eligible for CPP or QPP (Ibid p.47). These cuts to services disproportionately affect those
with more serious injuries. Medical training has so improved since the World Wars that
many severely injured and disabled soldiers who would have previously died have
survived and are in need of serious attention, though this may not have been easily
anticipated (Wiss, 2013).
By far, the largest cuts have been made to those most seriously disabled. The
Attendance Allowance was a substantial financial benefit, and its absence in new
legislation comes as a detriment to those who desperately need it. Those moderately
disabled are not as severely affected, as they would not have been eligible for these
allowances, nor would they be required. For this group of injured veterans, it is the
replacement of the Disability Pension with the Disability Award that has had the biggest
impact. The implications of this change are discussed later in this chapter.
Stakeholder Reaction
Substantial criticisms have arisen from stakeholder groups, as illustrated by the
2010 Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs (the Committee), released four years after
the institution of the NVC and entitled A Timely Tune-up for the Living New Veterans
Charter. It is a shame that this “tune-up” did not do more to expose the inadequacies of
NVC. Instead its purpose appears to be to demonstrate the government’s willingness to
make meaningful changes to the document.
In June 2010, just as Parliament was rising for summer break, the Committee

30. 29
presented its end of session report to the House of Commons. The Report reiterated the
Committee’s “tireless support for any measure that can improve the well-being of those
individuals who chose to defend our values of freedom by risking their physical integrity
and their lives” (Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, 40th Parliament, 3rd Session,
2010). Though this language will be discussed while analysing the social construction of
Canadian Forces veterans, it is important to mention the tone and sincerity with which the
Committee conducted its inquiries and made its 18 recommendations. It is just as
important to note the assumptions used to limit the scope of policy alternatives.
The Committee report cites the testimony of Brian Ferguson, Senior Assistant
Deputy Minister, Policy Programs and Partnerships, Department of Veterans Affairs
informing them that the Pension Act’s disability pensions “were awarded for amounts
insufficient to provide an adequate income,” and that the Act was “constructed to provide
compensation for pain and suffering received in service to Canada and not as income
replacement” (Ibid). Furthermore he asserts that VAC “could not offer an income stream
into the future” and under the Pension Act, “no rehabilitation was available” (Ibid). These
statements are used in support of the rationale guiding what the government has
presented as enhancements provided by the New Veterans Charter. Unfortunately his
assertions are patently false, as explained by the Committee in the paragraph immediately
beneath his testimony. The Committee asserts,
“under the Pension Act regime, it would have been possible to introduce
measures to facilitate the transition to civilian life for military members
released for medical reasons. A number of programs—generally modest
in scope—were developed by the Department of National Defence and
Veterans Affairs Canada over the years” (Ibid)

31. 30
Two years earlier, Mr Ferguson gave an interview to the Charlottetown Guardian
newspaper lauding the lump sum Disability Award. (Prince Edward Island is home to
Veterans Affairs Canada Headquarters). Fergusonproclaims that ”for the most seriously
injured (the lump-sum Disability Award) is a much more substantial financial
contribution” (Day, 2008). The Committee Report investigates this contentious portion of
the NVC in some detail, and concludes that despite the contention that the Disability Award
is not income replacement, it is insufficient without major reforms to income replacement
programs within the NVC. This point is the focus of the three guiding questions of the
Report itself and is discussed below.
The committee focused on the three major areas of the NVC: rehabilitation services,
financial benefits and the lump-sum disability award. The Committee guided its
investigation by the following three questions:
“Do the rehabilitation services offered under the NVC make it easier for
veterans to transition harmoniously to civilian life than previously? (…)
Do the financial benefits offered under the NVC guarantee veterans and
their families more solid financial security than previously? (…) Does the
lump-sum payment of a disability award enable veterans and their
families to achieve greater acceptance of the pain and suffering
associated with injury or death than previously?” (Ibid, p. 6)
Their answers were quite undeserving of praise. To the first, the government answered “a
cautious ‘yes’” with the qualification that questions remained regarding how many
veterans actually benefitted from the programs (Ibid). To the second, “a cautious ‘no’” as
the government recognizes that though the least injured veterans might be better off, for
veterans with complex, psychological disabilities “the NVC is a distinct step backwards in
financial terms compared to what the Pension Act provided, particularly for young

32. 31
veterans” (Ibid). The Parliamentary Committee was stating what researchers at Queen’s
University would reiterate one year later: that veterans’ benefits for the most injured and
vulnerable veterans were wildly insufficient. Addressing the final guiding question, the
Committee stated
“Very few of the witnesses heard supported this measure in its present
form, particularly as a result of the risks associated with the lump sum
payment of a large amount of money. Terms and conditions of payment
spread over a period of time could quite easily mitigate the problem, but
that will probably not be an adequate solution, unless significant changes
are considered to the programs providing financial benefits for income
replacement purposes” (Ibid)
The Government was made aware of the shortcomings of the New Veterans Charter long
before the Committee presented its report. Criticism was long available to them in the form
of newspaper editorials and letters and briefs especially from stakeholder groups to
Ministers and Members of Parliament. However, for the first time Parliament had produced
a substantial analysis of the NVC. Despite the seemingly critical and concerned nature of
the language in the Committee’s Report on this issue and the guiding questions, the
language used in several other passages suggests support for the NVC and the government.
The Committee’s findings are entirely inconsistent with the remainder of the
Report. Following forty-five pages of analysis and months of notably critical witness
testimony, the Committee somehow concludes, “the vast majority of those affected have
welcomed this reform very enthusiastically” (Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs,
40th Parliament, 3rd Session, 2010, p. 45). Notwithstanding the assertion that “very few of
the witnesses heard supported this measure in its present form,” the Conclusion details
what has occurred since the implementation of the NVC (Ibid, pp. 6, 45). “Our first

33. 32
observation is that the NVC is a significant improvement over the regime under the
Pension Act,” the Report proclaims (Ibid). It touts the new rehabilitation measures
available through the New Veteran’s Charter as a “significant improvement over the old
regime since measures are now in place to provide veterans all the assistance they may
need in the event of an injury” (Ibid). Though additional rehabilitation measures have been
added to the provisions available to injured veterans, rather than providing tax-free
income replacement to ensure their financial security, these new measures are designed to
return the injured veteran to the labour force as expediently as possible and to terminate
the government’s financial commitment just as quickly.
Among the stakeholder groups who testified before the Committee are Canadian
Veterans Advocacy (http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com) and EQUITAS
(http://equitassociety.ca/). Canadian Veterans Advocacy’s mission statement includes
“abolish the Lump Sum Disability Award and restore the Lifetime Pension” as well as “Push
for substantive changes and improvements to the New Veterans Charter” (Canadian
Veterans Advocacy, 2012). They assert,
“Of primary importance was -- and is -- the restoration of the Social
Contract and Sacred Trust between soldiers and the Nation they serve.
The government abandoned its soldiers and this social contract in 2006
when it passed the New Veterans Charter which replaced the Life-time
Disability Pension with an inadequate Lump Sum Disability Award”
(Ibid)
EQUITAS’ mission statement proclaims,
“with the introduction of the New Veterans Charter in 2006, all
Canadian soldiers who now make an application for disability benefits
are awarded primarily a one-time payment with some disabled soldiers
receiving various income guarantee funding. The total of all their

34. 33
benefits under the New Veterans Charter is significantly less than those
benefits provided by the previous Veteran Affairs Canada Pension Act, or
other compensation programs throughout Canada or by the Courts for
one-time lump sum disability payments (e.g.: car accident). (…) Although
Canadians were told that the New Veterans Charter was brought in to
improve benefits for disabled soldiers, it has become clear that this Act is
a financial hardship for many disabled soldiers. This is a situation that
needs to be fixed. As the result of the New Veterans Charter, many
disabled soldiers are in dire circumstances and their stories are heart
wrenching” (Equitas Society, 2012)
Though cited frequently within testimony, and often present at hearings, neither group
was invited to testify before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
The NVC: an expedient return to work
While the Pension Act focussed on long-term financial security of injured veterans
in the form of a tax-free monthly allowance, the New Veterans Charter has replaced this
provision with a one-time, lump-sum disability award. Veterans Affairs notes that the
disability award’s “sole intent is to recognize and compensate for the non-economic impact
(pain and suffering) of an injury or illness, and provide immediate financial help,” and that
it has other programs for long-term support (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012). These other
programs have been put in place to “help to compensate for the economic impact of an
injury or illness,” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012) but many veterans are ineligible for
these provisions and, with no other source of income, they are left using the Disability
Award as their income until it runs out. (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012). Currently,
without admittance to a rehabilitation program, there are no measures to deal with
veterans who have spent their Disability Award and haven’t any personal savings to rely
upon.

35. 34
Under the Veterans Charter, there are three benefits and allowances that a veteran
may be granted upon approval: 1) the Earnings Loss Benefit, 2) The Permanent
Impairment Allowance and 3) Canadian Forces Income Support. The criteria for receiving
any of these provisions are incredibly narrow.
1. Earnings Loss Benefit
In order to receive the Earnings Loss Benefit, you must first qualify to be admitted to
the rehabilitation and vocational assistance program. Although Veterans Affairs states
that you do not need to qualify for a Disability Award in order to qualify for the
rehabilitation or vocational assistance programs, in order to qualify for the
rehabilitation programs, one must have been medically released from the Canadian
Forces or have a service-related injury preventing one from returning to work
(Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013). Prerequisites for rehabilitation and/or vocational
assistance are arguably redundant considering that a service-related injury that
prevents one from working would likely result in a medical release. And, those being
medically released likely have a service-related injury. If one has been medically
released for a service-related injury, one would have likely have been approved for a
Disability Award.
The Earnings Loss benefit provides a mere seventy-five per cent of the injured
veteran’s previous salary, and is taxable. Therefore, a top-paid corporal who would
have enjoyed a salary in the high sixty thousand dollar range is eligible to receive a
maximum taxable benefit of approximately forty thousand dollars, if deemed eligible
for the Earnings Loss Benefit (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013; Canada Revenue Agency,

36. 35
2013; National Defence, 2013).

37. 36
(http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pay-sol/pr-sol/rfncmr-mrfr-eng.asp )
Consider for a moment if the veteran cannot properly care for him/her self
due to illness and requires the support of a spouse. In this case, the household
income lost would far exceed the immediate twenty-five per cent drop due to
matters beyond the veteran’s control, as the spouse of the injured veteran may need
to accommodate him/her, resulting in lower labour-force participation and a
further loss in income. This creates a problem that did not exist prior to the
enactment of the NVC, as the Pension Act provided a steady and reliable income for
injured veterans and provisions were not deducted from additional income earned
by the veteran. Spousal income is not deducted from the Earnings Loss benefit,
therefore, if the spouse of an injured veteran must reduce labour-force participation
and, by extension, their income, in order to care for the veteran, their aggregate
household income drops as well. Regardless of what the Standing Committee on
Veterans Affairs might say, in this case, the Pension Act is far superior to the New
Veterans Charter as the NVC represents a palpable drop in the income support
available to veterans, by its restriction of eligibility, and in the reduction in the
amounts paid to the veteran on a monthly basis.
Additionally, the Earnings Loss Benefit is a temporary measure as it is only
available to those concurrently undergoing a rehabilitation program and expires at
age sixty-five, whereas the Pension Act provision was for life. The EQUITAS Society
notes that the Earnings Loss benefit is typically paid out for a mere two to four

38. 37
years, a far cry from what was available under the Pension Act (Equitas Society,
2012, p. 20). Furthermore, as of 2010, less than eight per cent of those who had
received a Disability Award were eligible for or had completed a rehabilitation
program through Veterans Affairs (Ibid). This means that only a very small
percentage of injured veterans are receiving this kind of income support.
Without this provision and, by extension, without any stable income, the Disability
Award becomes the solitary piece of financial aid available to the veteran, which
means that, despite Veterans Affairs assertion that its “sole intent is to recognize
and compensate for the non-economic impact (pain and suffering) of an injury or
illness,” the Disability Award becomes, in effect, the compensation for the economic
impact of pain and suffering either way (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012).
2. Permanent Impairment Allowance
The second income-replacement measure provided by the NVC is the Permanent
Impairment Allowance. The eligibility criteria for this provision are far narrower
than the Earnings Loss benefit, and despite its name, it does not last very long; the
soldier’s impairment may be permanent, but the financial support available to
him/her is certainly not. In order to qualify for the Permanent Impairment
Allowance, one must be deemed permanently and severely impaired, by the
Minister of Veterans Affairs, must be on a Veterans Affairs-approved rehabilitation
plan and have received a Disability Award (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013).
Therefore, once the rehabilitation program finishes, the veteran is no longer eligible
to receive this entitlement. If less than eight per cent of injured veterans are

39. 38
enrolled in a rehabilitation program and are eligible for the Earnings Loss Benefit,
even fewer could be considered permanently and severely disabled. This provision
is available to a very tiny number of entitled veterans due to its severely restricted
eligibility criteria. In fact, in the first three years of the new regime under the NVC,
only three applicants had been awarded the Permanent Impairment Allowance and
by 2011, that number had only risen to sixteen, despite continuing and overlapping
tours to Afghanistan (Equitas Society, 2012, p. 21; Aiken & Buithenhuis, 2011).
3. Canadian Forces Income Support Program
The last income-replacement measure available to injured veterans under the New
Veterans Charter is the Canadian Forces Income Support Program. Of the three
income-replacement measures contained within the NVC, the Canadian Forces
Income Support Program is the only one that is tax-free. This provision has the
narrowest of criteria; in order to be considered eligible, one must have successfully
completed a rehabilitation program, have a household income insufficient to meet
basic needs (it is unclear how this is defined, as no clear explanation or criteria are
provided) and unable to find work (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013). This is the
program for those who have exhausted all other means of financial support and
those who are no longer eligible for the other income-support programs because
they have reached the age of sixty-five.
To add insult to injury, the maximum monthly allowance under the Canadian
Forces Income Support Program is less than one thousand three hundred dollars a
month for a single veteran and under two thousand dollars a month for a veteran

40. 39
with dependants (Equitas Society, 2012, p. 22). Any other income the veteran
receives in addition to this allowance is deducted from the base amount, leaving
many veterans earning a figure “always at a value below the poverty line” (Ibid).
This amount is woefully inadequate to maintaining a decent standard of living,
especially for elderly veterans completely unable to join the labour market by both
a function of their injuries and of age. It is currently the only provision that will be
available to Canada’s newest veterans unable to find work or elderly and only if
they have completed the rehabilitation plan. At the time, the Veterans Ombudsman
expressed his concerns regarding these benefits,
“The Office has challenged the Department’s decision to use a flawed
model—that of the claw back of Service Income Security Insurance Plan
long-term disability plan benefits, which is the subject of a class action
suit before the Supreme Court of Canada—for the Earnings Loss Benefits
package in the New Veterans Charter” (Office of the Veterans
Ombudsman, 2009)
The Class action lawsuit mentioned, Dennis Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen was
ultimately successful, though the flawed model remains in use for the income-replacement
measures under the NVC (CBC News, 2013). Before this decision, and from its inception,
SISIP would deduct from its long-term disability benefits the amount of the Veterans
Affairs monthly Disability Pension; leaving Pension Act veterans without the disability
insurance they had paid into. Now, under the NVC, any income earned while receiving the
Earnings Loss benefit is deducted, leaving the veteran with reduced incentive to work. This
is contrary to the neoliberal principles underpinning this policy shift.
The Lump Sum: Replacing a pension despite its intention

41. 40
The most contentious issue in the discourse surrounding the New Veterans Charter
is the Lump Sum Disability Award. The Department of Veterans Affairs describes the
Disability Award as “a one-time, tax-free cash award. It is paid in 5% increments, up to a
maximum of 100%. The current maximum is $298,587.97” (Veterans Affairs Canada,
2012). Under the previous Pension Act, veterans would receive a monthly support
payment for life, depending on the assessed percentage of injury. Under the Lump Sum
Disability provision injuries are ranked on a similar scale and veterans are paid out a
percentage of the maximum amount. Though it may run contrary to the stated sole intent
“to recognize and compensate for the non-economic impact (pain and suffering) of an
injury or illness,” and because of the restrictions and conditions placed upon the income-
replacement regime, “the majority (of injured veterans) are left to derive an annual income
from (a combination of) the investment of their lump sum pay-out (sic) and their own
reduced ability to work and earn income” (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2012; Equitas Society,
2012, p. 28). In his passionate submission to the Standing Committee on National Defence
in April 2013, Major Ray Wiss, a medical doctor, Canadian Forces Reservist, veteran of the
war in Afghanistan and author of FOB Doc, describes the trials the lump sum payment
thrusts upon injured veterans,
“rather than a pension, they are offered a lump-sum payment. This
obliges the injured soldier, often a young person with little financial
acumen and a fragile psyche, to make investment decisions that are at
the mercy of the stock market. (…) The rules were changed while the
game was still being played. CF members wounded in Afghanistan (…)
before the VAC Charter came into effect are getting $5000 a month tax-
free (or more) for life, as well as benefitting from a number of other
assistance programs. The previous Charter clearly offered a level of
financial security that was much more reliable and on going (…)” (Wiss,
2013)

42. 41
Three years earlier, Sean Bruyea, in his submission to the Standing Committee on Veterans
Affairs, made strikingly similar remarks,
“Given that a lump sum is given to disabled people, I think it is a bit
morally or ethically questionable that we give a lump sum to people in
their time of greatest need and distress, and that's usually at the time
that they transition out of the military. It's a very difficult time in most
people's lives. Even for the most level-headed people, it would be a far
stretch for them to manage that money well” (Bruyea, 2010)
The Disability Award leaves all veterans who are ineligible for income-replacement
programs vulnerable and at the mercy of both the financial and labour markets
simultaneously. The Veterans Ombudsman has had considerable input from veterans on
this matter,
“Many Veterans have objected to the decision of the lump sum disability award
that replaces the disability pension. The Office has com- missioned an actuarial
study to compare the previous Pension Act model with the lump sum model in the
New Veterans Charter to estimate the financial, physical, psychological and social
wellness of disabled Veterans over their lifetime” (Office of the Veterans
Ombudsman, 2009)
Subsequent reforms to how the Disability Award is paid out to injured veterans have made
it more difficult for the Government to claim that it does not replace the life-long pension
provision under the Pension Act.
The Department has recently provided options as to how the Disability Award can
be received by the injured veteran. Instead of obtaining the Award in one lump sum
payment, the veteran may decide to receive a part or the entire Award in monthly
instalments (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2013). This new option mimics pension payments,
and despite intentions, will allow veterans to use the Award just as they would a monthly
pension. The main difference is: these instalments eventually end, unlike a pension.

43. 42
The monthly pay out option undermines the government’s assertion that the
Disability Award is not meant to replace a monthly pension as, due to the narrow eligibility
criteria for income-replacement programs, many veterans are left with no other choice but
to use it in this manner. It would seem, in this case, that the Disability Award represents a
disconnect between policy objectives and policy outcomes. Whereas the government says
that the Disability Award was not meant to replace the life-long Disability Pension of the
Pension Act, it has, in effect done so and at significant cost to the veteran. The combination
of the lump sum and the new income-replacement programs are insufficient to provide the
financial security required.
Pension Act*
benefits
cumulative until
81 years old**
NVC Earnings Loss
for 3 year
rehabilitation
program + Disability
Award
Difference
between the two
Case example # 1
Private 22 years
old, no children+
(50% disability)
$457,991.04 $236,240 - $221,751.04
Case Example #2
Corporal, 30 years
old, married with 2
children+
(15% disability)
$175,142.16 $172,122 -$3,020
Case example #3
Major, 35 years
old, married with 3
children***+
(100% disability)
$6,180,721.92 $1,967,806.48 -$4,212,915.44
* Figures from 2003 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-6/page-2.html)

44. 43
**Average Canadian life expectancy (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-
som/l01/cst01/health26-eng.htm)
*** Includes Attendance Allowance for Pension Act and all allowances available
+ Before tax salary using highest pay scale for NVC Earnings Loss calculation
The three cases above highlight the major financial discrepancy between the
Pension Act and the New Veterans Charter. Though rank and age vary between each case,
these examples demonstrate that the worse a veteran’s disability, the more disadvantaged
he/she is when provided for by the New Veterans Charter. Although the difference is
almost negligible for those with a low disability assessment, the gap between the fiscal
benefits provided by both pieces of legislation widens considerably for moderately and
severely injured veterans. If Major Wiss is correct in his assertion that far more severely
injured soldiers survived injuries they may not have had in previous wars due to medical
advances, the benefit gap affects these severely injured soldiers the most as they receive
far less than they would have had they been injured a decade ago. Although injured
veterans are eligible for standard disability benefits through the CPP
(www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications/evaluations/income/2011/january.shtml), these
benefits are less than $12,000 a year, much less than 75% of the veteran’s income provided
on an interim basis by the Earnings Loss Benefit and insufficient to accommodate the
complicated injuries of war. Those who have sacrificed the most are now bearing the brunt
of the reduction.

45. 44
Chapter IV
The New Veterans Charter as a Neoliberal Policy
The New Veterans Charter’s income-replacement measures provide for seventy-five
per cent of the veteran’s post-release salary, which has been demonstrated to be
insufficient to meet basic needs in some cases, and in all others represents a decrease in
the standard of living of the veteran. Each of these programs provides less than what the
veteran is used to making, or less than what is required to achieve a basic standard of
living. All programs, from the rehabilitation program to the Canadian Forces Income
Support Program situate themselves in relation to the labour market and emphasise a
return of the veteran to the labour market. The rehabilitation and vocational assistance
program’s eligibility is contingent on the veteran having a service-related injury and being
unable to return to work. To receive any of the other financial benefits, one must first be
eligible for these programs, the goal of which is a return to the labour market.
While the Pension Act provided compensation for life based on the injury
sustained by the veteran, these new provisions have narrow eligibility criteria and are only
available for a limited amount of time unless the veteran is demonstrably permanently
physically disabled. These new income-replacement measures are tied to the return to the
labour market and not the injury sustained; financial compensation has shifted from an
injury or condition-centric approach to a market-centric approach. This shift is consistent
with the principles of neoliberalism.
The rehabilitation and vocational services programmes available to veterans have

46. 45
been privatised and are not run by the Government of Canada, but have been outsourced to
three private partners, the March of Dimes Canada, a non profit social agency, and two
private and commercial consultant agencies, operating together under the moniker Can
Vet VR Services (CanVet, 2009). This outsourcing to the private sector in the form of a
public-private partnership (P3) is characteristic of neoliberal social policy as it involves
less state and more market. (Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 2005). As
neoliberalism strives to privatize government, essentially bringing a wider range of human
interaction into the market, P3s contribute through the private provision of welfare, an
area traditionally served by the Keynesian welfare state (Ibid). Through the P3 with
CanVet, Veterans Affairs Canada, and by extension the Government of Canada have
privatized social welfare provision, creating a market for the rehabilitation of injured
veterans so that they may, in turn become gainfully employed once again to serve the
market as members of the labour force. The focus has moved from compensating the
veteran for his injury to moving past the injury as expediently as possible and returning
the veteran to market activity. Consistent with other neoliberal reforms, the financial
compensation packages rely on an incentive structure, as market participants responding
to incentives can create the desired market outcomes. The financial compensation
packages, all of which are tied to participation in the rehabilitation and vocational program
are time limited, providing a sense of urgency while all the while providing inadequate
income in order to incentivise a quick recovery and a return to the labour force.
The Political Economy of the New Veterans Charter
In effect, the New Veterans Charter has removed the social safety net once enjoyed

47. 46
by veterans and has replaced it with a neoliberal rehabilitation system that addresses the
needs of the market as opposed to the needs of the veteran. Neoliberalism seeks the
marketization of human interaction and in this case, what is considered the successful
rehabilitation of veterans is a return to the labour force. The Rehabilitation Program places
the burden on the individual to heal and rehabilitate at a rate much faster than would have
been expected under the Pension Act. With a life-long Disability Pension, veterans were
free to heal at their own pace and to explore career options without fear of the impending
loss of financial support. It is understood that “VAC found that many veterans served by the
Pension Act were focusing on their disability rather than on rehabilitation due to the
structure of the financial benefit” and that “the NVC attempted to rectify this by dividing
financial benefits into compensation for pain and suffering, and compensation for earning
loss due to disability,” this analysis misses the point. (Aiken & Buithenhuis, 2011, p. 4). The
Pension Act provided long-term financial security to veterans in recognition of their
service-related disability. It provided for a guaranteed standard of living for the rest of the
veteran’s life. If the Government of Canada was concerned that veterans were not receiving
the vocational training and the rehabilitation they required, they might have introduced
enhanced measures to suit these goals. As Drazen notes: “actual policies are often quite
different than optimal policies, the latter defined as subject to technical and informational,
but not political constraints” (Drazen, 2000, p. 7).
In this case, the neoliberal hegemony as described by Harvey can be considered the
political restraints in play during the complete overhaul of the veterans’ disability
compensation package. The New Veterans Charter, as it remains today, may be the optimal
policy within the greater neoliberal framework, however is it demonstrably not the

48. 47
optimal policy from the point of view of those it is meant to serve. On the broader question
of who benefits from the change and who pays, it is obvious that it is both this hegemonic
agenda that benefits, as it serves to perpetuate it and it is, undoubtedly, paid for by the
veterans who are left with less financial security and forced to prematurely join the labour
force in order to make up for this insecurity.
The Social Construction of Veterans
As noted in Chapter 2, the social construction of the veteran has moved from
“advantaged” or deserving under the Pension Act to “dependent” under the New Veterans
Charter, as defined by Schneider and Ingram. Whereas the Pension Act provided the
financial security for veterans to properly deal with their disabilities without interrupting
their level of income and ability to care for themselves and their families, the NVC treats
veterans as dependents in need of financial support but only for the duration of their
rehabilitation program, which is designed to return the veteran to productive labour. This
neoliberal emphasis on individual responsibility of the veteran removes Canada’s
collective responsibility to care for the veteran, having risked life, limb and mental state
and suffering a loss to one or more. Now constructed as “dependent,” veterans fall into the
same category as welfare recipients and subject to the same unjust neoliberal rhetoric.
This rhetoric, whether intentional or not, justifies the reduction in financial benefits as
continued emphasis is placed on individual responsibility. This is fundamentally
problematic in the case of veterans as, upon enlistment, a soldier enters into an unlimited
liability contract with the Government of Canada. This protects the Government from civil
action in the case of mental or physical injury to the soldier. Soldiers enter into this

49. 48
contract willingly as the expectation is that they will be properly cared for by the
comprehensive benefit package they are entitled to in the case of injury. It would be
unreasonable for one to enter into such contract if it were believed that the benefits the
Government provides in these cases would be wildly insufficient as demonstrated of the
New Veterans Charter. What is especially troublesome is that for the great number of still-
serving soldiers who joined the Canadian Forces while the Pension Act dictated these
benefits, as Ray Wiss so eloquently states, “The rules were changed while the game was
still being played” (Wiss, 2013). Wiss continues,
“we asked (them) to work with ‘unlimited liability.’ But half way through
the most intense combat mission we have been involved in since the
Korean War, the Government of Canada Changed their liability toward
them, y reducing the benefits to which the wounded were entitled” (Ibid)
If injured after the NVC came into effect, these soldiers who thought they were signing up
to an organization that provided life-long support in case of injury were instead subject to
the diminished programs of the NVC. Whereas they may have been viewed as entitled to
the benefits under the Pension Act, they are now dependent on the provisions under the
NVC and subject to its narrow eligibility requirements. The Government was able to sell
this removal of benefits and neoliberal shift in policy by how it constructed the change.
What can only be described as a reduction was labelled an enhancement.
The Social Construction of the Enhanced New Veterans Charter: Better than bad is
still worse than good
With the original incarnation of the New Veterans Charter receiving high criticism,
on November 17th, 2010 Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn gave a speech

50. 49
announcing the enactment of an Enhanced New Veterans Charter. He described the
enhancements as “a series of improvements to the care and support of our Canadian
Forces personnel, our Veterans and their families” because “we owe it to these brave men
and women to ensure that they can count on Canada in the event they are injured in the
line of duty.” (Government of Canada, 2010). The Minister announced “the addition of an
additional monthly payment of $1,000 — for life — to help our most seriously wounded
veterans who are no longer able to work” (Ibid). He announced that enhancements would
contribute to “improving access to the Permanent Impairment Allowance and the
Exceptional Incapacity Allowance in order to include up to 3,500 more Veterans” (Ibid).
He announced that “improvements” had been made to the Disability Award,
“The legislation that we are tabling today ensures that our Veterans and
Canadian Forces members have that choice. Those receiving a Disability
Award will have the option to receive it either:
 through annual payments over any number of years the recipient
chooses;
 as a partial lump sum and partial annual payments over any number of
years the recipient chooses; or
 as a single, lump-sum payment.
 furthermore, at any time, the beneficiary can choose to be paid their
outstanding balance as a lump-sum payment” (Government of Canada,
2010)
Minister Blackburn made sure to educate the crowd properly on the Disability Award,
"Once again, I would like to reiterate that, contrary to information that is
often conveyed, the Disability Award is not intended as a replacement for
the Disability Pension, or as an income replacement. The Disability
Award is meant to compensate for pain and suffering. Under the New
Veterans Charter, there are still monthly payments for life for those who
need them” (Government of Canada, 2010)

51. 50
The Minister uses the words addition, enhance and improve several times throughout his
announcement; he socially constructs the NVC by branding the legislation an enhancement
and labelling its measures improvements. By reiterating the assertion that the Disability
award is not meant to replace the Disability Pension, he perpetuates the social
construction of the injured veteran and legitimizes narrowed eligibility by constructing
some veterans as more deserving of financial stability than others all the while leaving
veterans to use the Disability Award in this manner as income-replacement measures
remain insufficient. He asserts that these changes “meet veterans needs,” suggesting that
they are sufficient to quell the criticism of individual veterans and stakeholder groups.
Unfortunately for the Minister, they did not.
In their position paper on the New Veterans Charter, EQUITAS, a Vancouver-based
non profit organization criticizes the way the NVC was portrayed by the Government of
Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion, “they gave the impression that many NVC disability
benefits were universal, and paralleled (…) traditional workers compensation program (…)
and this advertising (is) ‘overselling’ at best and ‘disingenuous by intent’ at worst” (Equitas
Society, 2012). These stakeholders were able to recognize that the social construction of
the policy was dishonest and are attempting to expose this, however the government has
far more resources at their disposal and can easily flood the discourse with its
construction.
In October 2011, the newly appointed Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney gave
another speech discussing the Enhanced New Veterans Charter. He asserts that his
Government’s construction of the NVC has been successful, that “there is a growing

52. 51
recognition that this new approach is focused on wellness, and that it really is helping our
injured and ill men and women to make the best recoveries possible, in the shortest time
possible” (Government of Canada, 2011). The Government has socially constructed the
veteran as a “dependent” and deserving of a new approach that facilitates recovery as fast
as possible. This is consistent with neoliberal thought and is being socially constructed as
enhancements and improvements to what was once available to veterans. This benefits the
Government as it can been seen to be improving services to ill and injured veterans while
simultaneously reducing the financial benefits available to them or reorganizing how the
same amount of financial support is administered. This comes as a detriment to veterans as
they receive less of the help they need, less frequently and less predictably.
Perhaps the Government truly believes that they are improving benefits. Perhaps
their social construction of the New Veterans Charter is not malicious and cynical. Perhaps
it is so committed to the neoliberal ideological framework that it considers the New
Veterans Charter a real improvement to the Pension Act. The New Veterans Charter
focuses on the individual responsibility to rehabilitate and re-join society, whereas the
Pension Act focused on the collective responsibility of society to take care of those who
have sacrificed life and limb on its behalf. The Government wants the emphasis on
recovery and not on the injury itself. What seems to have been lost in the discussion are
the veterans who are getting by with demonstrably less than they have ever had to before.

53. 52
Chapter V
Conclusion
Neoliberalism’s ideological hegemony has been characterized by the retreat of the
state in social policy, the reduction of social benefits, and the creation of markets in
additional areas of human life. The New Veterans Charter, a creation of the neo-liberal
Conservative federal government under Prime Minister Steven Harper, has reduced state
involvement in the administration of programs and benefits by shifting responsibility to
the private sector. Under the Charter financial assistance has been demonstrably reduced
by the implicit replacement of the Disability Pension with the Disability Award, and in so
doing the Government has fundamentally created a market for veteran’s assistance. This
shift has left many veterans worse off than their colleagues wounded prior to 2004, some
of whom suffered an injury during the same mission to Afghanistan. Through effective
branding and labelling, the Conservative government has constructed the policy change as
an enhancement, better serving the men and women of the Canadian Forces and improving
their lives.. But the Charter reforms have meant a reduction in the fiscal benefits available
to veterans, negatively affecting those of all ranks and ages, though the most seriously
injured and sincerely in need are by far the most severely disadvantaged. When civilians
sign up to be soldiers and engage in a contract of unlimited liability with the Crown, there
is an expectation that, if injured in service to the country, veterans will be cared for
sufficiently. Prior to the enactment of the New Veterans Charter, the Pension Act provided
a predictable life-long, tax free Disability Pension but the government has replaced this,
along with several other allowances, with a one-time, lump-sum Disability Award. This has

54. 53
proven wildly insufficient and constitutes a breach of the expectation that Crown and
country will properly care for those injured in service to them, the expectation created by
the promise Prime Minister Robert Borden made so long ago.
This research has revealed that:
1) The New Veterans Charter is an archetypal neoliberal policy representing a
significant reduction in fiscal benefits allotted to injured veterans of the Canadian
Forces. The Conservative government presents the New Veteran’s Charter as
enhancing and improving the services available.
The New Veterans Charter’s ‘improvements’ certainly do not improve the financial
security of injured veterans as the government asserts. There are a number of ways to
measure the drastic decrease as well as several areas and programmes within the
historical legislation that have been curtailed or abolished completely. Aitken and
Buitenhuis identify their “most obvious” observation as the
“Pension Act provides a significant financial advantage over the New
Veterans Charter (NVC) for veterans with severe disabilities. The
difference between the Pension Act and the NVC compensations is
greatest for veterans who live longer, those who are married and have
more children, those with a higher disability assessment, and those
released at a lower rank. These groups are financially disadvantaged
under the NVC compared to the Pension Act (Aiken & Buithenhuis, 2011,
p. 47)
This conclusion is revealed in the statistical comparison of the benefits from the two
different programs. The New Veterans Charter represents only 58-69% of the funding
available to severely injured veterans under the Pension Act, depending on age and rank
and assuming the member is married with two children, which is the average (74%) for
clients served under the NVC (Ibid p.20, 24). These reductions are severely exacerbated

55. 54
when cuts to services and dependant supports further shift the burden from the
government to the soldier and his family. This is confirmed by the notional cases in
Chapter III, where the most severely injured veteran was most disadvantaged with the
highest assessed injury and more dependents, though veterans of all variables were
disadvantaged under the NVC.
These problems have been brought to the government’s attention by way of
Ombudsman’s Reports, Parliamentary Committees, stakeholders and, most recently, the
application for a class-action lawsuit on behalf of veterans receiving reduced benefits
under the New Veterans Charter. However no meaningful change has been made, though
the federal government continues to laud the NVC as properly taking care of our veterans.
Though the government uses rehabilitation and vocational assistance programs as
examples of improvements to the services available to injured veterans, narrowed
eligibility requirements have left many veterans unable to access what is offered. What is
more, many of the ‘new’ programs are duplicates and therefore superfluous as National
Defence’s SISIP program continues to offer similar and overlapping services. The NVC
offers far less than its predecessor and what it does offer, wasn’t missing.
2) In presenting the NVC, the government has employed techniques to shift injured
veterans from their position as “deserving” to dependent and therefore undeserving,
in order to reduce the benefits available to them and terminate government liability.
The Charter is also supposed to provide an incentive to injured veterans to return to
employment.

56. 55
Whereas, traditionally, the Department of National Defence’s SISIP program
provided vocational rehabilitation to injured veterans and the Department of Veterans
Affairs provided financial security through the life-long, tax-free Disability Pension, the
NVC has mandated the Department of Veterans Affairs to assume SISIP’s previous role and
the veteran’s return to the labour-force has become the primary goal of the programs
provided for under the NVC. This, coupled with the demonstrably severe reduction in
financial assistance has incentivised a speedy return to the labour force, as financial
benefits are now much more limited. Furthermore, as many programs rely on self-
identification of mental and physical wounds, the application process can be stigmatising
and has reduced veterans from deserving beneficiaries to dependent (and undeserving)
clients. The NVC disability provision is now labelled an award rather than a pension,
further exacerbating the effects of this shift by suggesting that, once received, the Disability
Award provides what society and government have prescribed as sufficient regardless of
the fact that it may be enough to care for the veteran’s individual needs.
3) Not only has the government severely reduced the fiscal benefits received by
clients of the Department of Veterans Affairs but it is the case that the benefits
currently available are insufficient to provide support and assistance to veterans
who are affected by their participation in the war.
Notwithstanding the fact that the NVC represents a severe reduction in the financial
support offered to injured veterans, those who have sustained the greater injuries are
exponentially worse off than their processors under the Pension Act. With the repeal of the
Attendance Allowance, many veterans are left to rely on spousal or community support.

57. 56
This shift is consistent with the neoliberal retreat of the government from the provision of
social policy and the downloading of responsibility for this provision on to the private and
third sectors, the results of which can be financial devastating to families. Even if the
veteran is accepted into the rehabilitation program and is receiving a 75% income support,
without provisions for attendant care, spouses and families are left to fill the gap, reducing
their labour force participation, forcing families into precarious employment and further
negatively impacting total household income. The design of these programs has been
described by stakeholders as forcing injured veterans to live at or below the poverty line.
4) Lastly, the Government of Canada, in providing insufficient veterans benefits, is in
breach of the contract it signs on behalf of the Crown with each and every soldier
entering the Forces and into armed combat.
Under the NVC, no longer can soldiers depend on the bold proclamation of Prime
Minister Robert Borden that,
“the maimed and the broken will be protected, the widow and the
orphan will be helped and cherished. Duty and decency demand that
those who are saving democracy shall not find democracy a house of
privilege, or a school of poverty and hardship" (Veterans Affairs Canada -
Canadian Forces Advisory Council, 2004)
Veteran’s benefits have been severely reduced, to the point of insufficiency, and spousal
and family support have been removed, placing veterans at a desk in the aptly described
school of poverty and hardship. Veterans sacrifice life and limb with the expectation that
they will be properly cared for by those they so diligently and selflessly serve. The NVC is a
betrayal of this sacred trust that has existed since Canada first asked its sons and

58. 57
daughters to fight on behalf of freedom and democracy and against the tyranny of
nationalism and the brutal ambition of the Triple Alliance.
Canada has made incredible contributions in the area of social justice and has in the
past been considered a bastion of equity concerned with the wellbeing of its citizens and,
indeed, of the world. We have recognised that sometimes the most undesirable acts are
required of those serving in the armed forces and that these sacrifices come with a cost,
but that this requirement is accompanied by a commitment to value the efforts of those
called to service and to providing for those who have made this deep, personal sacrifice on
behalf of all Canadians. Though our men and women of the Canadian Forces continue to
make these sacrifices, the government has fallen short on its commitment to care for those
injured in its service. Without meaningful changes to the provisions available to ill and
injured veterans, this commitment will remain unfulfilled, to the detriment of those who
are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of all. It is time that Canada abandons the
rhetoric and makes a meaningful sacrifice for those willing to sacrifice for us.