Pour en finir avec les mythes entourant les indemnités offertes aux membres de la Force de réserve et de la Force régulière

Ottawa (Ontario) - Le 9 janvier 2015

« Les réservistes en service de classe A ou B reçoivent les mêmes indemnités de décès que les membres de la Force régulière. »

Q : Vrai ou faux?

R : Faux

Depuis que j’ai été nommé ombudsman il y a plus de quatre ans, mon bureau prône le thème Un seul groupe de vétérans. Tous les vétérans ayant une blessure ou une maladie, ou pour qui le décès est lié à leur service, doivent avoir accès aux mêmes avantages quels que soient la nature, le moment et l’emplacement de leur service. Certains des évènements marquants de 2014 furent les attaques ciblées de membres des Forces armées canadiennes (FAC) en sol canadien. Puisque l’une des deux victimes était un
membre de la Force de réserve, de plus en plus de vétérans et de porte-paroles de vétérans font valoir que les réservistes à temps partiel (service de classe A ou B, 180 jours ou moins) ne reçoivent pas, dans des circonstances semblables, les mêmes avantages que les membres de la Force régulière.

J’ai soulevé la question du traitement inéquitable des réservistes auprès de plusieurs ministres des Anciens Combattants. De plus, j’ai fait une recommandation à cet égard dans mon rapport sur la Nouvelle Charte des anciens combattants (NCAC), et le rapport de l’examen de la NCAC réalisé par le Comité permanent des anciens combattants (CPAC) de la Chambre des communes incluait également une recommandation visant ce problème. Le gouvernement a réagi au rapport du CPAC en disant qu’il « […] est d’accord avec l’esprit et l’intention de cette recommandation » et qu’un « […] examen approfondi de cette recommandation sera donc mené. » À ce jour, je n’ai reçu aucune indication de la façon dont le gouvernement compte résoudre le problème.

Il est temps de remettre les pendules à l’heure. Voici les faits.

Les réservistes à temps partiel ayant une blessure ou une maladie, ou pour qui le décès est lié à leur service reçoivent moins d’indemnités que leurs collègues qui font partie de la Force régulière ou qui sont des réservistes à temps plein. Le taux des avantages financiers offerts par Anciens Combattants Canada (ACC) ne varie pas selon la catégorie de service, c’est à dire le service à temps plein ou le service à temps partiel, sauf dans le cas des deux avantages financiers suivants : l’allocation pour perte de revenus (APR) et la prestation de retraite supplémentaire (PSR), dont le montant varie en fonction du montant de l’APR. Par ailleurs, le taux moindre de l’APR versée aux réservistes à temps partiel n’est pas indexé sur l’inflation, contrairement au taux applicable aux réservistes à temps plein.

En ce qui concerne les avantages financiers offerts par les FAC, les prestations de remplacement du revenu versées aux réservistes en service de classe A et B à temps partiel, aux termes du régime d’assurance invalidité prolongée (AIP) du RARM, sont inférieures à ce que reçoivent leurs collègues à temps plein.

Mon bureau a fait une comparaison exhaustive des avantages offerts advenant un décès lié au service, pour un réserviste en service de classe A ou B et un membre de la force régulière, afin d'illustrer les conséquences néfastes de ces différences. Selon les circonstances, tous les avantages ne seront pas versés. Par exemple, s’il n’y a aucun survivant ni aucune personne à charge, la prestation de survivant prévue par le régime de retraite ou l’indemnité de décès d’ACC ne sera pas versée. Chaque situation est différente et il faut s’assurer de tenir compte des circonstances personnelles dans le calcul des avantages.

Il est intéressant de noter que le Régime d’assurance mutilation accidentelle (RAMA) offert par les FAC comportait des différences semblables, mais le problème a été corrigé récemment. Dorénavant, les membres de la Force régulière et de la Force de réserve sont remboursés de façon égale.

Le problème est clair, il a été étudié de fond en comble et il est facile à résoudre, comme l’indique la recommandation formulée dans mon rapport sur la NCAC. Pour mettre les choses en perspective, il s’agit d'environ 40 réservistes en service de classe A et B (service de 180 jours ou moins) qui sont libérés pour des raisons médicales attribuables à leur service, comparativement aux quelques 1 000 membres de la Force régulière qui sont libérés chaque année pour des raisons médicales*. Le temps est venu de faire ce qu’il faut pour corriger cette situation.

 

Guy Parent

Ombudsman des vétérans

*Statistiques fournies par le Ministère de la Défense Nationale

Blogue – commentaires

Veuillez inclure vos commentaires ci-dessous. Nous vous rappelons que si vous souhaitez présenter une plainte concernant votre situation personnelle, vous devriez aller à la section Présenter une plainte.

Avis important

Voir les détails relatifs aux avis importants

En participant au blogue, vous assumez la responsabilité personnelle de vos commentaires, de votre nom d'utilisateur et de toute information fournie. Afin de protéger vos renseignements personnels et ceux d'autrui, les commentaires qui contiennent des renseignements personnels ne seront pas publiés. « Renseignements personnels » s'entend des renseignements, quels que soient leur forme et leur support, concernant un individu identifiable, notamment son nom, son adresse, son adresse électronique, sa race, son origine ethnique, son dossier médical, ses antécédents professionnels ou tout numéro identificateur qui lui est propre. Veuillez également prendre note que les opinions ou les idées personnelles qui portent sur une autre personne sont considérées comme des renseignements personnels au sujet de ladite personne et comme lui appartenant.

Remarque : Tous les champs désignés par un astérisque (*) doivent être remplis.

(ne seront pas publiés)

Avis de confidentialité

Voir les détails relatifs à l’avis de confidentialité

La présentation des renseignements demandés dans ce formulaire est volontaire. Les renseignements sont recueillis conformément au décret C.P. 2007-530, qui a créé le poste d’ombudsman des vétérans, afin de donner au public l’occasion de formuler des commentaires sur les enjeux présentés dans le blogue de l’ombudsman des vétérans. Les renseignements personnels que vous fournissez sont protégés en vertu de la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels.

La Loi vous donne le droit de consulter ou de corriger vos renseignements personnels.

Vos renseignements personnels seront stockés dans le fichier de renseignements personnels numéro ACC PPU 210.

Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec notre coordonnateur de l’accès à l’information et de la protection des renseignements personnels.

Commentaires

TK said:

I am RegF attempting to get braces/invisalign, but have have been told that I have to be on my second contract and stay in the geographical area for 3 years. Is this correct?

9 mai 2017 5:41 PM

Maj G said:

Dear Reg Force wife: I'm a Class B reservist since 2007, with 31 years total service. I once had a boss who bluntly told me why he loves reservists on his staff: because he can send us on any tasking anywhere and we won't say no because we're worried about our next Class B contract as opposed to the Reg F member who will come up with any excuse not to go on the task. I lived the equivalent of IR for a year without the benefit, been sent away for 2-3 months at a time (on several occasions), sometimes with as little as a 4 days notice. This happens often with Cl B reservists, because if they don't perform they may not have another contract at the end of the term. Oh, all at 15% less pay, but equal stress on the family. I realize I chose this career path, however being a second class citizen in any society is unjust all while having to perform at the same level as your peers.

3 octobre 2016 3:51 PM

Sgt P said:

The cash payout is a joke. I was injured in Afghanistan on one of my five tours of duty for this country and I am now unfit to serve because of my injuries. The CAF is releasing me and I will be cut in the coming year from my earning which, under IPS, I could have served 10 more years. However, I don't meet Universality of Service because of the injuries and out I go. This equates to about $750,000 in possible lost earnings over my last 10 years. Veteran Affairs decided that that my injuries equaled $46000 and a pat on the bum for a good job! Now I have to appeal the decision because it is my fault?!? Mr. Ombudsman, please talk to the MVA and fix the NVC! It has been more than a year since I have been hearing about fixes to the NVC. With open promises, veterans are losing faith in the government we swore to protect, including you. We already have the "have not" veterans living on the street. If you want to help veterans, bring back the monthly cheques to those who served their country well. The cash payout is "shut up" money and leaves a bad taste in out mouths.

6 janvier 2016 11:41 AM

Reg force wife said:

I agree you deserve the same level of respect, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same pay. We get moved around our lives get uprooted and start over, we don't get a say we just do it. Often times I've been denied jobs because of being a reg force wife. If you work for the reserves you choose where you want to live and you can stay as long as you want your partners can have careers in their field of choice and your kids can stay with their friends. If you CHOOSE to deploy or go on course your wife and kids are most likely close to family and friends, when we get TOLD to deploy or go on course we could be accross the country in a posting we dont like and if its a relatively new posting we may not have had much time to get used to it and made friends. If you want reg force pay then just go reg force. This is perspective from this side of the fence in case this may not have occurred to you. As for the official why I don't know.

19 décembre 2015 9:39 AM

Scott said:

I asked the Ombudsman about this and it was ignored...was it because of the election....why were veteran up against this nonsense...benefit of doubt..I dont think so.... OTTAWA — Veterans Affairs Canada managers made hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses for cutting costs as the department shed hundreds of jobs. In 2011-12, the department paid $343,000 to 60 managers under what appears to be a new program for “Savings/Spending Targets.” No such bonuses were given out in previous years. Bonuses ranged from $2,376 up to $14,728, and averaged about $5,700 per person, said a departmental response to a question tabled by Sen. Percy Downe of Prince Edward Island. The following year, $243,000 was paid out to 55 managers, an average of $4,400 each. At the same time, the department cut hundreds of jobs. In 2010-11, Veterans Affairs had 3,708 employees. By 2013-14, the department dropped 658 jobs to 3,050 positions. Earlier this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper downplayed the cut jobs as “backroom administration” and “bureaucracy.” While the number of employees fell, payments to veterans did not. The department’s budget has remained steady and sits at $3.5 billion, slightly above what it was five years ago. The department said the reason for cutting jobs is a decline in the number of veterans it serves over the past five years, as well as new reforms to cut red tape. The number of Veterans Affairs clients has dropped, although not at the same rate as the cuts. The number of people who received support from Veterans Affairs dropped from about 220,000 in 2008 to 205,000 this year, said the department. That is a drop of about seven per cent. Over that same time frame, the department reduced its staffing by about 1,000 full-time jobs, or almost 25 per cent. NDP veterans affairs critic Peter Stoffer said paying out over half a million dollars in bonuses while cutting staff will infuriate veterans. “I just find that absolutely appalling,” said Stoffer, who represents Sackville-Eastern Shore. “It’s quite sad to be honest with you.” A key unanswered question is what has happened to caseloads. When federal auditor general Michael Ferguson looked into the department, his auditors were told that overwork among case managers was a problem. However, the department did not have enough data for auditors to examine the issue. The Chronicle Herald requested numbers on caseloads, but the department did not provide any numbers as of Thursday evening. “They definitely are overworked, overwhelmed and everything else,” said Cape Breton veteran Terry Collins, who was active in the movement to save the Veterans Affairs office in Sydney. Collins said his case manager saw her caseload rise from around 500 clients to well over a thousand, although the Herald could not confirm this. The department said it has recognized the issue and has been hiring new case managers this year. The department also said it has streamlined services to provide quicker benefits with fewer staff. This includes eliminating the requirement to submit receipts for health-care travel expenses, housekeeping and grounds maintenance services. The government has also moved some services online, and has directed veterans to Service Canada stations. Both moves were controversial and angered some veterans, but the department said it had the effect of creating 600 new points of service across the country.

24 octobre 2015 11:17 AM

Danny J said:

Still waiting. I haven't heard anything back in regards to my file. You wonder why veterans are upset. Try living with something hanging over your head and not knowing when it will go away or be resolved. I have contacted the OVO several times, talked with my CMO, and now I am resorting to attending rallies in order to seek help from other veterans. Look at the time date stamps on my first complaint 31 January 2014. Now we are into October and before you know it, it will be November. Mind boggling isn't it!

11 octobre 2015 9:47 AM

Bureau de l'ombudsman des vétérans

Merci pour votre commentaire. Nous vous invitons à communiquer avec nous au 1-877-330-4343. Nous ferons de notre mieux pour vous fournir de l'aide et de l'information selon vos besoins.

14 octobre 2015 12:21 PM

Scott said:

Very simple question why was this great office not on top of this automatic 24% refusal rate for pension or award disability applications? Also I am lost as to why you would not happen to mention the Dept. Managers that are getting kick backs (Bonus) to meet that Quota! Were you aware of this and why on hells earth does this go on in Canada? Automatic Shame

20 septembre 2015 1:37 PM

Barc said:

Yes, I have complaints about the way Reservists and the Regular Force are treated. I've seen how many reservists are more dedicated to the military and have more integrity than a lot of Reg Force members. Reservists get paid less than Reg force for doing the same job. I thought this was sorted out with womans rights many years ago, (equal pay for equal work), but I guess I was wrong. I'm glad to see that Mr Parent is looking into the difference in benefits. I just hope it doesn't take 2 years to go through all the red tape to implement changes. I just want to say, "Good Work", for the people fighting for our equal benefits.

24 août 2015 9:27 PM

Matt Edwards said:

One vet, 1 std. Should also apply to non-duty illness or injury. For example, CF/VAC SISIP LTD treats Res F vets way less fair. 1. "On duty" clause excludes us, in effect. Think about it, "on duty" is covered by VAC. 2. SISIP LTD was designed for non-duty so it is Absurd to link a Res F soldier to duty when a Reg F soldier does not have to fulfill this obligation. This wholly deprives a Res F vet of an benefit under the Law (Charter s. 15(1)). 3. In effect, SISIP LTD is a "stealth" VAC program BUT it saves VAC money by using the pool of Insurance money accumulated by CF mbr contributions. The disabled soldier is financing his own DISABILITY! How low can you go? See case below, this applies to CPPD too: [63] In my view, the Appeals Tribunal was correct to hold that an *** injured worker should not become “a ‘funder’ of his/her own workers’ compensation.” This is exactly what would have happened to Mr. Douthwright if the Commission’s decision had not been overturned. Such an outcome would be contrary to the ** scheme of the Workers’ Compensation Act pursuant to which benefits are *** “employer funded.” - same principle applies to SISIP LTD, we paid for SISIP LTD - CPPD too

4 juillet 2015 8:16 AM

Roger said:

MON dossier est 4013777

13 février 2015 10:25 PM

Roger said:

J'ai passé près de 22ans dans les forces régulière .Ont ma donné une libération 3A en 1991.Incapable de fonctionner dans le service ou d'occuper des postes dans la régulière, la réserve et même avec les cadets. Les docteurs des forces m'ont aider et rempli toute les formes pour recevoir le CPP,
Et même je le recevait(CPP) depuis le 1 Jan 1990.Probleme a marcher, a me tenir debout, et a avoir une job.

J'ai fais application pour la pension d'handicapé des vétérans  
 Ils vos docteurs mon rejeté et après 25ans je ne suis pas reconnu. Il me donne ne pension de 18%soit3/5 de 30% pour mon dos et 6% soit 2/5 pour mes genoux . Cela fait maintenant 25 ans que je leurs( docteurs) demande pourquoi il mon donner une release médicale 3A si je suis si peu handicapé

Personne me répond sur ce sujet la .
Je suis pensionné pour bien d'autre problème 

Pourriez vous m'aider  pour l'injustice  a mon égard

13 février 2015 10:24 PM

Danny J. said:

WHY IS IT SO HARD for the conservative government to overturn the NVC lump-sum payment back to a monthly pension? Please answer this question! Dear PM Harper & Veterans Ombudsman, My two sons and daughter will never serve in the Canadian Forces as it stands now. Thirty-nine years of combined service (My father and I) and it will remain Thirty-nine years. The poor treatment of Canadian veterans is why I will discourage my children from joining. Canada will not have my two sons and daughter fighting for a government whom does not support its troops. "Just do the right thing and fix what is broken in the charter and stop all these studies. I am a veteran and I don't feel supported.

31 janvier 2015 6:53 AM

Bureau de l'ombudsman des vétérans

Merci pour votre commentaire Danny. Je pense aussi qu'il est temps d'agir pour remédier aux lacunes de la NCAC. J’ai, sans relâche, demandé des changements concernant les enjeux les plus pressants, tel qu'il est indiqué dans mon rapport (http://ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/fra/rapports/rapports-examens/amelioration-nouvelle-charte-anciens-combattants) et repris dans mon récent blogue (http://ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/fra/blogue/post/287). Il s'agit d'une priorité pour mon bureau et je partagerai les mises à jour dès qu’il y en aura.

3 février 2015 4:29 PM

Murray said:

It seems to me Mr. Ombudsman that you are getting the runaround mixed with a lets dangle a carrot to keep the Vets quiet until after the election. Mixed with empty promises to move things along with as much speed as possible...and lets not forget about the Earnings Loss I went 16 years not able to work and contribute to my CPP. I will be turning 65 in a couple of years and what is going to happen to those of us who have relied on the Earnings Loss as part of our benefits and I have no Idea what our how we will live our senior years? I sense that the Gov. of the numbered days has no intention of making our senior years poverty free. Given all the false hopes put out by the PM's office and to some extent the Ombudsman's Office because the Gov. had no intention of putting the major items like ELB on the table as it should have already been there and already passed. If nothing else all those great reports by you and your staff were well done and it speaks to the type of PM we have that sends more of our people to war as we speak without clearing up these problems...that must build confidence with our Pilots that are being shot at as we speak as well....I sure hope that someone somewhere gets these things fixed and starts re: building our morale among all of our Forces. All the best Murray

26 janvier 2015 6:18 AM

Danny J. said:

WHAT A SYSTEM. Benefit of the doubt? I applied for benefits because I was deemed medically unfit to serve in the Navy by the medical professionals of the Canadian Armed Forces. Entitlement (which is an oxymoron in itself), I was given 1\5 for a chronic lower back condition(which is the condition I was released for). I was then able to navigate through the directives that DVA uses and I established a consequential link to other conditions, go figure! I have been around the military my whole life (base brat and ex-service member) and I cant believe the way ex-military are treated. (Recently now 2015) Thanks to me having to collect my own evidence to make a claim. (I went to a previous supervisors home and had him recall an accident I was involved in 1998 in the Navy) he gladly helped me out and wrote the incident down on paper for me to submit to the reconsideration unit). Benefit of the doubt, well now there will be no more doubt. The sad thing about this, I had to find my witness from years ago. I cried when I got home......think about it.

24 janvier 2015 9:57 AM

ECollins said:

We have Canadians who have put this uniform on, and have been injured and died for Canada. Certainly, those brave people defending our country deserve the same benefits and treatment no matter what! Both are members of the Canadian Armed Forces and entitled to the same level of respect and gratitude.

23 janvier 2015 8:50 AM

Bill McIntosh said:

If you die or are hurt in the service of your country then you should receive full benefits would senior politicians accept less than full benefits for themselves.

22 janvier 2015 8:53 AM

James Northrup said:

You put the uniform on no matter if you are Regular or Reserve and are Injured or killed in the line of duty you deserve the same benefits and treatment no matter what the time frame. Both are members of the Canadian Armed Forces and entitled to the same level of respect.

21 janvier 2015 1:03 PM

Charles Isaacs said:

We written and long over due. One Veteran one Standard I so very much agree.

10 janvier 2015 9:52 PM

Charles Isaacs said:

We written and long over due. One Veteran one Standard I so very much agree.

10 janvier 2015 9:52 PM