Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you gentlemen for coming today.
I have comments on just a couple of issues. First of all, I think the charter has improved the quality of life of veterans and their families; but as in everything, things need to change. One of the things I'd like to see—and this, of course, would require legislative change—is to see the RCMP fully incorporated into some sort of a charter, because right now, if RCMP veterans go to DVA for any assistance they require, they don't qualify for things like the VIP program, etc. So I think a discussion on their inclusion will eventually have to take place.
I also have here information on what the British do for their HM Armed Forces personnel. They've doubled the upfront payment to £570,000 for the most severe injuries or death. That's quadruple what we give. This is one of the things I'd like to see changed. I know we work side-by-side in Afghanistan. The guys are sitting there, thinking: well, if you go, your family gets this; if I go, my family gets that. So maybe it's something to look at in the future.
As well, what's most important is that this or any other lump sum payment does not affect eligibility for any other payment schemes they get. So there must be no deductions, no clawbacks, for example.
One of the problems we have is that the charter will move along and eventually will change to benefit the modern day veterans, yet we still have outlying problems from before. We still have many veterans who are getting the SISIP clawback deducted from their medical payments, or deducted from other payments. That's still a problem.
We have veterans who are still concerned about the marriage after 60 act. If they're married and remarry at 59 and live for 20 years and die, then their second spouse gets the pension. But if they marry at 60 and live 20 years and die, the second spouse gets nothing.
These are old hangover problems that our veterans are still dealing with.
Also, there is the issue with the amount of money a pensioner leaves when he dies. The spouse only gets 50%. That should be bumped up, because in many cases the spouses then dip right into the poverty world.
The Veterans Charter I think is doing an admirable job, but there's no question it needs to be improved.
I have three questions for you.
When military personnel leave the service because of either a physical or mental injury and go into the other public service for jobs, some of those people in those jobs are looking at these guys and thinking, hmmm, if you're not good enough for the military, what are you doing in here? So there needs to be more sensitivity training in the rest of the public service to let them know these men and women are coming from the military and that they should not be treated with kid gloves, but with understanding that they may be going through PTSD issues or some things of that nature. That's one question.
Two, there is the concern about the future of veterans when Sainte-Anne's gets privatized. Or, if it doesn't get privatized, what's going to happen to the thousands upon thousands of veterans who will need hospital care when World War II and Korean veterans pass on? What's going to happen to the modern day veteran in that regard?
Three, we have 220,000 clients at DVA and 750,000 to 800,000 retired RCMP and military personnel, meaning that two-thirds of the people who have served aren't your clients. What are you doing, especially in Veterans Week, to get the message of the charter out to everybody in Canada to say if you're a veteran or the spouse of a veteran, we may be able to help you? Not just through the Internet or through the legions, what are you doing to get that message out there through the newspapers and television and radio to let them know these benefits are out there for them? This type of message went out, by the way, to all of the British papers, so every single person there would have seen it.
Thank you.