Retired Major Mark Campbell talks to reporters during a rally on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Wednesday, June 4, 2014. Campbell is one of the plaintiffs in a legal case in B.C. over veterans' benefits; the case has been put on hold for a year.FRED CHARTRAND/The Canadian Press
Veterans injured in Canada's modern wars say they're willing to wait until after the next election to see if a new government of any stripe is willing to improve their benefits and make their class-action lawsuit unnecessary.
The stand came Monday after B.C. Appeal Court Justice Harvey Groberman rejected a bid by lawyers for veterans and the federal government to scrap a federal appeal of a lower court ruling that rejected the government application to strike down the lawsuit.
Instead, Justice Groberman suspended the proceedings to May, 2016, expressing concerns about issues in the case not being argued out in court.
Responding to the ruling, Major Mark Campbell, who lost both legs in a Taliban attack, said he could not see the merit of pressuring the federal government with the federal election looming.
"With Parliament about to be dissolved, nothing substantive is going to come about anyhow. There aren't going to be any more substantive bills or substantive changes possible between now and the outcome of the federal election," the 50-year-old Edmonton resident said in an interview.
Mr. Campbell was among six named plaintiffs who launched the suit against the federal government, taking issue with reforms to Canadian Forces compensation for members of the armed forces injured before 2006.
They have been concerned about changes to replace a lifetime disability pension for disabled soldiers with lump-sum payments.
"I am prepared to roll with the punches," he said of Monday's development. "Am I surprised? No. Am I disappointed? Not necessarily. I believe that the right outcome is going to derive from everything that we're going through right now."
Jim Scott, the father of the lead plaintiff among six in the case, said it's difficult to move forward without knowing which party will be governing Canada after the election.
"We really have to wait until there's more clarity in government," he said in an interview.
Mr. Scott said he and supporters have been talking to all major national parties. He said he has been briefed on the yet-to-be released Liberal Party platform for veterans, but only on the condition he does not disclose it.
Asked for comments, the Liberals issued a brief statement from veterans affairs critic Frank Valeriote: "The Conservatives have repeatedly demonstrated where they stand on veterans' issues – typically in a courtroom fighting against veterans."
The official opposition NDP, asked about Monday's developments, noted in a statement that its policies heading into the fall election include an end to fighting legal battles against veterans, reopening veterans affairs offices closed by the federal Conservative government and an overhaul to the veterans charter that would include addressing such issues as career transition, death benefits and education assistance.
Mr. Scott said he could not comment on the NDP platform.
Outside the court in Vancouver, lawyer Don Sorochan, acting for the veterans, said he and counsel for the federal government arrived ready to abandon a federal appeal that had been argued in December.
Mr. Sorochan said Defence Minister Erin O'Toole, appointed in January, had reached out to see if the issue could be resolved in the public interest, leading to extensive discussions with the government and other political parties.
He said the parties concluded the best next step would be to take the appeal off the table. With that option now eliminated, he said some of the onus now goes to Canada's major political parties.
"I want the political parties to start into an auction of how much they are going to do for veterans," he said. "We'll have nice, competitive bidding to see who can outdo each other to do good things for veterans."
Federal lawyer Lori Rasmussen also told reporters that the Crown was ready to abandon its appeal, but the court obviously had a "bigger picture" to consider.
"The upshot of today's outcome is that it allows the parties to proceed on their chosen path, which is a collaborative effort to resolve these matters to everybody's satisfaction."
Ian Bailey