Veterans Affairs Committee on March 7th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

I'm sorry for the delay to our witnesses.

Welcome to meeting number 42 of the Standing Committees on Veterans Affairs. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, March 4, 2011, we are dealing with Bill C-55, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act and the Pension Act.

We're going to extend the meeting a little. We have allowed our witnesses here today each a five-minute statement and then we'll have one five-minute question for each party, because there is half an hour allowed for this part.

From the Association du Royal 22e Régiment, we have Elphège Renaud, president, and Claude Sylvestre, first vice-president. Welcome, gentlemen.

[Elphège Renaud, President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment]

My name is Elphège Renaud. I am the president of the Association du Royal 22e Régiment.

I know that the government members may not like what I have to say, but I believe the $40,000 minimum announced by the minister is a form of income replacement that has nothing to do with war-related injuries or disabilities.

On the matter of the lump sum, nothing has changed. Veterans will not get a single penny more. It is merely the payment method and terms that have changed. So instead of one payment, they will get the money in several installments.

I see that the maximum allowance has improved slightly to $1,609, but in order to be eligible to receive that money, you have to have a disability assessment of 100%. The same goes for the additional $1,000 for life. In order to receive that $1,000, you have to be eligible to receive the $1,609. You have to be fully disabled, 100%. So very few veterans will be able to access that money, which means that the government will not have to pay out very much. Veterans have told me that they were asked to stop complaining—

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Renaud, could you please slow down for the interpreters?

[Elphège Renaud]

I have just five minutes to say what I have to say.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

It is to help the interpreters. You will get—

[Elphège Renaud]

This is my time, that's enough.

You made me lose my train of thought. Can I continue?

Overall, the government will not have to pay out very much more. The $40,000 minimum is a form of income insurance and has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Someone returning from Afghanistan may have an injury, but it is not necessarily for that. It is to help those who enlist in the army and are at the bottom of the pay scale. If someone makes a $43,000 salary, 70% of that amounts to less than $40,000. This is not a benefit for soldiers who come home from the war wounded. This measure does not provide for them.

Nevertheless, it sounds good. That is where Mr. Lévesque interrupted me. Veterans have told me that they were asked to stop complaining because the government was giving them $40,000. Where is that claim coming from? The government will not pay anyone $40,000, at least not according to what I have heard. The only improvement is the $1,609 allowance. It looks good on TV to say that they are going to offer $1,609, but they forget to mention that, in order to get that amount, you have to be 100% disabled. That does not include everyone. The guy who's lost an arm is not 100% disabled and will not get that $1,609. He may get 10% of that amount, so $160 for his arm.

And the same goes for the $1,000. It goes hand in hand with the $1,609; the guy has to be 100% disabled to get that $1,000. Sadly, this is all just for show. The government wants to come off looking good by making these wonderful announcements, but in reality, very little money will be paid to veterans.

That is good, even though I did not use my full five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

You have two minutes left, sir.

[Elphège Renaud]

I still have a minute. I said what I had to say. I said it very quickly, but I covered the important points.

The minister announced three things. He announced a minimum, which has nothing to do with this. Forty thousand dollars sure sounds good! It is simply to confuse people. Then there were also the $1,609 and the $1,000 payments.

That is all. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Sylvestre, please.

[Claude Sylvestre, First Vice-President, Association du Royal 22e Régiment]

I had a chance to eat breakfast with some veterans in Quebec City, many of whom had served in Afghanistan. Even members who were leaving were there, they came to talk with us. To illustrate my point, I will divide the two wars into two categories. I consider the Second World War and the Korean War to be human wars. There have always been and there will always be wars. The other kind of war is inhuman war. During the Second World War, we were trained to kill and be killed. But they are trained to kill and kill no one. They worry about what they are going to do when they hit 65.

A typical case is that of someone who has lost both legs. He gets $154,000. His father is retired, and his mother makes him buy a house. He has no money left. When his parents die, who will pay the property taxes? He does not have a single cent, and he has only a grade-seven education. What do you want him to do? His spirits are as low as they can be. Most of those we meet, real soldiers who served in Afghanistan, are worried; you cannot begin to imagine how worried. You would not believe how much they worry. They say they are not administrators and do not know how to interpret all the confusing information they are given. They are told it is one amount here and another amount there, but that does not tell them anything. They just want enough money to support themselves for the remainder of their lives, as is the case with the soldiers from the Second World War.

Personally, I am considered to be 50% disabled, and Mr. Renaud is considered to be 100% disabled. I do not get that same $1,600 a month that someone who is fully disabled does. Soldiers do not understand, and neither do I. I read this and wonder where this is going and what exactly is the soldier going to get. And soldiers are even more confused.

Someone with a grade-seven education will never be able to understand the mishmash of numbers and jargon or the associated requirements that depend on their rank, age and salary. There are so many factors involved, and these soldiers will end up with nothing. I find that inhuman. Soldiers hand out candy to children with a man at their side, and he is the one planting the bomb when night rolls around. They say to themselves the odds are in their favour, and they admit it. They say to themselves that 157 people killed in 8 years is not too many. Soldiers go there for the money. A corporal gets $70,000, and his only expense is what he buys at Tim Hortons. Then he gets another cheque for $20,000. When you have a guy with a grade-seven education starting out in the workforce, it doesn't get any better than the army. If the odds are in his favour, he comes through okay, but if he is not so lucky, he will be in trouble. His future will not be very bright.

That is all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

The first question will be five minutes. Ms. Sgro, please.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for being here today. As always, thank you for your contribution to our great country and for defending all of us in the past.

My question will go to either one of the gentlemen who wants to answer. Have you had a chance to review the bill we're referring to today, Bill C-55?

[Claude Sylvestre]

Yes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Do you feel that it's one step in the right direction?

[Claude Sylvestre]

I don't think so.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Could you please elaborate?

[Claude Sylvestre]

He's the specialist on this.

As far as I'm concerned, it's only a regular pension that would clear everything. An amount of $1,600, then the $40,000, they don't get that. That's not a pension.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Have you had an opportunity to have any discussions with the department on the bill itself?

[Claude Sylvestre]

No. We had a lecture from the minister a couple of weeks ago. He gave all those figures there. I couldn't make out exactly how much a soldier who is hurt gets. It's impossible, because it depends on his age, salary, grade, and the number of years he's been in the army.

The soldiers told me they can't figure it out.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Sylvestre, how else would the department be able to sort that out if it wasn't relative to the number of years the individual was in the service, and so on? Do you think there should be a flat amount for everyone?

[Claude Sylvestre]

From 1939 to 1945 you got a pension until the day you died. They didn't have to worry at 65 or 70 what was going to happen to them.

They worry about it night and day. Every Wednesday some of them come to have breakfast with us at the shopping mall. It's always the same thing. We ask them, “How are you doing?” They say they don't know what they're going to do when they reach the age of 65 or 70. Anyone who has spent all of his money there--what is he going to do?

[Elphège Renaud]

Do you think I did not read Bill C-55? Are you saying I said something else? It is $1,609. In order for a veteran to be entitled to that money, he has to be 100% disabled, in other words, without an arm or a leg. A veteran who is 50% disabled will get only half of that amount. And that is $800, is it not? In order to receive the $1,000, you have to be entitled to receive the $1,609. So you would get a monthly allowance of $1,609 in addition to an extra $1,000 for life. That sounds pretty good. But to be entitled to that $1,000 a month for the rest of your life, you have to be receiving the $1,609. You have to be 100% disabled. How many soldiers returning from Afghanistan will be 100% disabled and therefore entitled to receive that $1,609?

What's more, you have to meet other conditions as well to get that $1,000. I know because I applied for it. You must be unable to walk, be in a wheelchair or be unable to attend to your own affairs, such as getting dressed. That is my situation. You have not seen me without my clothes on, it is not a pretty sight. And I was not even eligible to access the entire amount, even though I should be. I am actually much more disabled than I appear. If I did not have my clothes on, it would probably frighten you to see everything I have to wear underneath.

It sounds great when the government makes this kind of announcement. They talk about $1,609 and $1,000 for life. People who read about that in La Presse or see it on TV will think that the government is supporting veterans. A veteran who spent 33 years in the Canadian Forces—and who happens to be my cousin—told me today he thought the $40,000 was for every veteran. That is not the case. It is an additional benefit for those who are eligible and will mean more money for them. I have always said that any extra money a veteran is given would be welcome, but the government must not go around claiming it is handing over enormous sums, either. All the better for those who will be able to access that money. They will have the security that the $1,609 and $1,000 for life will provide, but it is not quite as easy as picking up a cheque. This room could fit all the veterans who will be eligible to receive that money. I know one thing, I have been getting a pension for 58 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

We have to move on now.

Mrs. Gagnon.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Not me—

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair. I am getting some feedback through my earpiece. I think it has to do with the interpretation. The English translation is coming through at the same time.