Ottawa's legal manoeuvre on veterans benefits called 'a betrayal'

The federal government is taking veterans back to court to try to block certain benefits for injured and wounded soldiers,despite aLiberal campaign promise to better support themafter an era ofConservative cuts.

"It's a betrayal," said Donald Sorochan, the lawyer representing thesix Afghan war veterans who initiated a class-action lawsuit over pensions and other benefits.

"They have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie. Isat at tables [during the campaign] with some of the people who are now in cabinet. Those ministers have been turned into liars by the Department of Justice," he said Tuesday, noting the electionplatform explicitly promised that no veteran would have to "fight the government"for the support and compensation they have earned.

Apeaceagreement of sortsreached by the previous Harper government and the veterans,the plaintiffs,expired Sunday.The two sides failed to reachan out-of-courtsettlement, and now government lawyers have informed the B.C. Court of Appeals that they will pick up the lawsuit where it left off.

• Legal truce over veterans benefits on shaky ground, lawyer warns MPs
• Veterans emergency fund runs out of money
• Kent Hehr says Liberals will move quickly to help veterans

The plaintiffshave argued in court that the government has a sacred obligation to its injured soldiers and that the lump-sum payment wounded veteransreceiveunder the New Veterans Charter as opposed to the pension that was previously offered to veterans before 2006 is inadequate compensation, as they receive less money over the course of a lifetime.

They've also argued that itviolatestheir rights theright to life, liberty and security of the personunder Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The social covenant is this promise that our country, Canada, has promised service people they will be protected when they get maimed and their families will be looked after if they are killed," Sorochan said.

Government lawyers outraged veterans by asserting that the federal governmenthas no extraordinary obligationto those who have fought for the country, and therefore the litigation has no merit.

The justice department lawyerstried to block the case during the Harper era by arguing that Canada does not have asocial covenant with veterans, and that a "scheme providing benefits cannot be said to amount to a deprivation merely because claimant views the benefits as insufficient." They also saidthat the plaintiffs"seek to advance a pure economic interest."

Erin O'Toole, who was brought on by Harper to replace Julian Fantino on the veterans file, ultimately repudiated those arguments and tried to put an end to a political headache that had been dogging the Tories for months.

Moreover, all parties voted unanimously in favour of a motion introduced by NDP MP Fin Donnellylast May, which recognized a "stand-alone covenant of moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people and members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or died as a result of military service."

O'Toole alsoremoved the lead government lawyer, Paul Vickery, from the caseand replaced him with Joel Watson, a litigatorfrom the private sectorand himself a former veteran.

But Sorochantold CBC News that the government lawyers havetold him they will nowrevive the argument that thegovernment does not have a sacred obligation to veterans totry to kill the class-action lawsuit once and for all.

The Liberal government has also putVickery back on the case.

'Charging intothe valley of politicaldeath'

The plaintiffs agreed to drop their lawsuit if the government provided timetables for implementing Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr's mandate letter, which included pensions for injured veteransamong other key promises.

ButHehrhas so far been frustratinglynoncommittal as to the schedule of some of his top priorities, Sorochan said.

"He's personable, but Idon't think he engenders a lot of confidence that he's going to get things done for veterans," he said. "Usually, when you have a rookie minister,you have politically savvyminders that keep them out of trouble. He doesn't have them."

A spokesperson for the minister said Tuesday that Hehr "remains committed" tore-establishinglifelong pensions for veterans "and to all items in his mandate letter," but added that because the matter is before the courts it would be inappropriate to comment further.

Now, Hehr has signed off on sending the issue back to court, Sorochan said, which is a slap in the face to veterans who sought to find a mutually agreeable resolution.

"Why are others in his caucusallowing him to retreat to a position that contributed, at least in part, to the Conservative defeat? When you're told you're charging intothe valley of death, by me, you'd think you'd stop charging.

"We walked down that path of reconciliation and weattempted to find a solution that would be in the best interest of all parties. But,for some reason, this minister has accepted arguments by the Departmentof Justice that they should slam the door on it and go back to court and re-ask the court to accept arguments that had been repudiated."

TheLiberal platform in the last electionexplicitly promised to restore the pension benefit."We will re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans, and increase the value of the disability award," the platform reads.

• Justin Trudeau promises lifelong pensions for injured veterans

The 2016 budget did allocate more than $4.6 billion over three years to boost support forveterans, namely reopening serviceoffices, increasing the disability award and boosting the earnings loss benefit for injured veterans andexpanding access to the permanent impairment allowance but it was silent on pensions, the biggest sticking point.