Veterans Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Henwood. Again, our apologies that your time was cut short because of the vote in the House. Certainly, if you have any additional testimony you'd like to submit to the clerk, then we'll analyze that, and it will be part of the testimony we'd look at with regard to our final report and recommendations.

[Bruce Henwood]

If you've got the first three reports, would you like the fourth?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes. Since it's only in English, and you have one copy, submit it to the clerk, please, and then we'll have it translated and distributed to the committee members.

[Bruce Henwood]

The department may have had it translated already. I don't know.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm getting a nod, so we'll be able to get it from the department in both official languages.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

We already have it, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Henwood.

I'm not going to pause, because we're in such a time constraint.

I'm going to ask Monsieur Renaud and Monsieur Sylvestre to come to the table and take their place as witnesses. These fine gentlemen have served our nation well. They're from the Royal 22nd Regiment's association.

In French, this will be the Association du Royal 22^e Régiment.

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

The chair has just said that we did not have much time so I will try to get right to the point.

Good afternoon to all committee members. Let me introduce myself. My name is Elphège Renaud and I am 78 years old. I am president of the Quebec branch of the Association du Royal 22^e Régiment. I served in the Royal 22^nd Regiment from 1949 to 1954 as a paratrooper. I was a volunteer in the Korean War from 1951 to 1953, when I was severely injured after stepping on a mine.

Today I am appearing before this parliamentary committee tasked with amending the veterans' charter in order to make some constructive suggestions. On the whole, the charter is not bad. Some parts of it are nearly perfect. I would especially like to focus on the way that we compensate soldiers who have been severely injured, such as those soldiers who are coming back from Afghanistan after being injured in the theatre of operations. If the government has the means to send troops to this region in order to meet its commitments to the United Nations and to fight terrorism in the world, it should also have the financial means to provide adequate compensation to injured soldiers who come back with disabilities they will have their entire life.

Let us use my example. I have been suffering from my injuries for 57 years. I did not lose my legs, but they have no feeling in them and I am in constant pain. I have been taking pain medication, morphine for 57 years. I have not had a normal life like everyone else. I have been on medication my entire life to deal with all kinds of complications from the injuries I sustained.

Following the Valcartier visit of the veteran's ombudsman, Colonel Patrick B. Stogran, who was appointed by the federal government in November 2007, and at the request of the association's Quebec branch, I have made the required presentations in order to amend the new veterans' charter.

With respect primarily to the compensation given to a soldier who has been injured or contracted an illness while on active duty in the theatre of operations, such as in Afghanistan, the current lump sum payments do not provide lifetime financial stability for veterans. A monthly payment would achieve this because of the fact that payments are made on a regular basis. A study was done on people who had won a great deal of money playing the lottery, sometimes millions of dollars, and most of them did not have any money after five years. I do understand that some winners did make mistakes, but the fact is, some of them wound up on the street, whereas a monthly payment cannot be spent until it has been received. So that provides stability and financial security.

I would like to talk about the lump sum payments. I believe—and everybody else also thinks as I do—that these lump sum payments probably came about in order to enable the government to save some money. The maximum amount is $276,000, which is far from being enough to provide a reasonable pension of between $3,000 to $4,000 per month for life, to a veteran. In addition, even if this were an adequate amount generating a reasonable monthly income, it is not safe to pay such an amount of money, in one lump sum, to a veteran who is not necessarily equipped to manage his or her finances properly, in order to ensure that he or she has lifetime financial security. The government must think for the individual. The government is responsible for the veteran as long as he or she is alive. I strongly believe—and I know what I'm talking about—that the government must pay, as it has done from the time of the Second World War to the conflict in Afghanistan, a monthly pension, for life, and not a lump sum payment as it began doing since the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan in 2006.

I would like to draw your attention to the duties of the ombudsman, and I quote: “...will not review decisions made by the VRAB”. This quote was taken from a government document outlining the duties of the ombudsman. In documentation distributed by the Office of the Ombudsman, the opposite is said. It states: “ ...to review systematic issues related to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board”. Who is right? The government or the ombudsman?

Why does England provide a maximum of $800,000 to a disabled soldier who is 100% disabled whereas Canada pays only $276,000? Even if this maximum amount paid out by Canada were earning reasonable interest in accordance with market rates, the amount would not be enough to provide the veteran with a reasonable income after 10 years. And after that, how is he supposed to live? He is supposed to live on the small amount provided by social assistance that is given to everybody.

Since he risked his life, does he not deserve better? It is absolutely shameful for a country like Canada. I have met several veterans who were seriously injured, who lost one or both legs. The compensation they received was completely laughable, and they are just 23, 24 or 25 years old.

To show you the extent to which previous governments looked after the financial security of war veterans, I would like to talk to you about a program which does not exist anymore. It was a program included in the Veterans Land Act. Under this program, if a veteran did not want land for farming, he could choose to buy a new home, which he built himself. To protect the veteran, his downpayment was the land. The land title belonged to Veterans Affairs Canada. So Veteran Affairs Canada was the owner, and it rented out the house for 25 years to the veteran. After 25 years, sometimes earlier, if the mortgage was paid off, the title was transferred to the veteran, who took full and clear possession of the home, and who then was completely free of debt. During the 25 years, the veteran could not sell, mortgage or borrow against the house, since he was a renter and not the owner. Veterans Affairs Canada lent us $12,000, and our downpayment was the land. We paid Veteran Affairs Canada $8,000, and the balance of $4,000 was given to us because we had served our country well. This was proof positive that the government cared about the security and financial stability of its war veterans. Our monthly payment was $46.64, since there was a 3% interest charge on the $8,000. This approach really helped the war veterans in a concrete way. I benefited from the program, and the house I built is easily worth $250,000 today.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope the government stops compensating war veterans with lump sum payments, and goes back to the former approach, mainly a monthly pension for life, assessed every three years, which can be increased, if necessary. The government can provide compensation in two stages; first, a minimum lump sum payment, and second, a monthly pension to ensure that war veterans have a degree of financial stability. The government also needs to improve compensation for smaller claims, like those for glasses, prostheses, and so on, since Charlottetown is doing all it can to avoid making these payments, and uses the most ridiculous excuses as a pretext. We should have a booklet outlining our benefits, and then we should be able to claim them. Charlottetown has to stop doing what it is doing, mainly grasping for any excuse not to pay.

I have several other examples for you, but the worst thing is that the ombudsman cannot intervene in the VRAB's, the administrative tribunal's, decisions. For instance, I filed a claim for $350. I was reimbursed $150 for medication, and the $200 was for the fees charged by the physician who had withdrawn from the government system. I was told to seek compensation from the government, but the doctor had withdrawn from the system. So I had to pay $200 out of my own pocket, since I could not receive compensation. If we appeal, the response will be the same, as always: the ruling is upheld.

Thank you. I tried to be brief, since the chairman said we did not have much time. Perhaps I spoke too quickly, but you have my brief which you can take your time reading later on.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Renaud. Amazingly, the translator kept up with you.

Mr. Sylvestre, do you have some opening remarks, sir?

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

My name is Claude Sylvestre. I am a veteran of the war of 1939-1945. I was wounded in Italy while I was fighting with the Royal 22nd Regiment. I will only give you an overview, but I will include some details. The rest you have in your copies. I am sorry, but at 20 cents a word, having the brief translated into English would have cost a fortune.

The Veterans Review and Appeal Board, located in Charlottetown, is one of the only organizations in the world with a mandate to deliver extremely important rulings for war veterans, and to simultaneously decide whether a decision is valid, including all of its details. In other words, the board is both judge and jury. I have included copies of the legal provisions which are always ignored under the act.

The authorities in Charlottetown seem to have carte blanche to do what they want: hire staff, give themselves promotions, prohibit us from entering district offices. The War Veterans Allowance Act does not seem to exist for them. They seem to feel they have all the evidence they need. They even managed to include restrictions on the duties of the ombudsman, and in so doing completely paralyzed his work, since a war veteran must appeal a decision, yet when a ruling is made, he is not allowed to touch it — I would invite you to read the ombudsman's duties; there are only two.

Contrary to the description which was copied and distributed to everyone at a meeting in Valcartier, people were appointed to the board in Charlottetown who seem to have been directed to settle any case which might be brought to the attention of the ombudsman in which no appeal was allowed. Therefore, they can control the ombudsman, who must do as the authorities say, which completely robs him of his independence.

When he studied my case, the ombudsman called me and assured me he would recommend to the minister that I receive compensation following surgery. Please refer to the document you were given. The ruling was upheld under the act and the regulations. It is impossible to find out which regulations were invoked, since there was no appeal.

In 2000, according to Google, there were over 37,485 public servants. But now, there are approximately 40,000 across Canada. Google cannot reveal that information; Charlottetown has seen to that. It took over the duties of district office employees and hired staff, and it has opened satellite offices — which are completely useless and must cost a fortune — favouring friends and increasing their pensions.

Incidentally, no deputy minister understands a word of French. So a lower-ranking correspondence officer writes a letter in French, which is dictated by a superior. This is what he has the deputy minister saying: “The changes to the district offices were made in the interest of freeing up staff to help you.” That is a good one, because, as it now stands, these offices are not allowed to serve Second World War veterans. We cannot get any service, we cannot even phone. I will talk about trying to call them later on.

This decision, which was taken in 2000, was catastrophic for dozens of war veterans, because until 2000, the district office employees visited the veterans in their homes, whereas the veterans who could still walk could go to the small district office. Charlottetown closed the office in 2000. Deprived of any kind of help, dozens of veterans, including some who were decorated for acts of bravery, died in total misery and penury. They never said anything, and they lived on welfare. They could not do anything because most of them were illiterate. They could not communicate in writing, and even less by phone.

I helped a fellow veteran from the Royal 22nd Regiment who was completely at a loss and whom I felt sorry for. I knew him very well, since he had been by my side on the Bren machine gun. We were being heavily bombarded, and another soldier was hit directly; his head landed in the ditch a metre away from my friend. A switch went off in my friend's head and he was never the same again. You can read his story in the file I gave you, which is entitled: “The Tragedy of a soldier of the Royal 22nd Regiment”. Six doctors tried to help him, but nothing worked.

We are extremely grateful to the Hon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn, who deigned to meet with us during a meeting at Valcartier. To my knowledge, it was the first time that a minister ever visited a group of soldiers. The following Wednesday, at our weekly lunch at Place-de-la-Capitale, in Quebec, the men celebrated by drinking a better kind of coffee. It was unprecedented!

My final recommendation would be that Ms. Sheila Fraser should carry out an administrative investigation of the way in which this surprise package works. They have always been free to do whatever they want, without any supervision. We, who belong to the veterans group that participated in the 1939-1945 war, are considered as a second class group. We are completely forgotten.

The famous Colonel Charles Forbes, who spent 18 months in combat and was one of the most highly decorated Canadians, recently asked for help from the district office, but he did not get any. They are not allowed to provide help to a veteran of the 1939-1945 war or to a veteran of the Korean War. If you try to get in touch with these people by telephone, you have to go through Kirkland Lake, where you have to tell your life story.

I called them and I said that I wanted to speak to Ms. Such-and-Such, who is a nurse. The operator then asked me why I wanted to meet a nurse. Frankly, there must be a limit! She never agreed to transfer my call, even if I knew very well that the nurse was in her office. She left a message on her answering machine. From that moment on, the nurse had two days to answer us. However, she had to make a report to Kirkland Lake. In fact, all the veterans of the 1939-1945 war and of the Korean War were transferred to Kirkland Lake. This is where their file ends up, no matter what they have to say about it, and they do not have the right to say very much about it.

We finally ended up taking care of the colonel. We tried to make some arrangements with soldiers from the 22^nd Regiment who could help him and with women personnel who could help his wife, but nothing worked. We are forgotten citizens.

The file that I submitted to you contains all the explanations. However, I am sorry that I could not translate it.

Gentlemen, I have said what I had to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Sylvestre.

Some documents that were submitted by still have to be translated. The translation normally takes about five to 10 days, and then the documents are distributed to the committee.

We'll entertain questions now, Monsieur Renaud and Monsieur Sylvestre.

We have about 16 minutes. That's about four minutes per party.

We'll go to Madam Crombie for four minutes.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Monsieur Renaud and Monsieur Sylvestre, it's just a delight to meet both of you and to be acquainted with you. I want to thank you on behalf of all of us for the service you've given to our great country and making us the great nation we are.

You've come forth with some very interesting observations, and I have some questions on some key areas.

First and foremost, we've heard from Mr. Henwood before you, and many groups, about the lump sum disability payment and the negative impact it's had on the lives of our veterans. We know that Francine Matteau also says that she believes the federal government made a mistake when it abandoned the monthly pension payments, and she called for a return to the monthly pension benefits versus the lump sum. I wondered if you could both comment on that.

As we know, the new Veterans Charter was always meant to be a living charter. It was always meant to be something we could make revisions and changes to as we saw necessary. Now that we've identified this significant flaw, the onus is on us to make the changes to correct this for our veterans.

I wonder if you want to comment on that.

[Elphège Renaud]

Even if those people have already received a lump sum payment, there would be some way of coming back to a pension. It would be assessed on a case-by-case basis, more or less in the same way as when an individual receives too much money from the employment insurance system. He goes on receiving his benefits, but a certain amount is clawed back from his cheque. If, for example, an individual has received $200,000, there would be some way of changing this formula into one of monthly payments, while clawing back a certain amount each month in order to recover the $200,000 that was previously received.

I met with a group of five young people aged 23 or 24, who had both legs amputated above the knees. Myself, when I was injured at the age of 20, I did not think like an 80-year-old. These specialists told me that when I would be 50, 60 or 70, I was going to eat “candy”. I am against medication, but this specialist told me that I would do just like everybody else and that when it would really hurt, I would take the medicine, and that is what I do.

These young people do not have much foresight. I asked them directly how much money they had left. They all answered me that they had completely run out of money. These are normal reactions. They purchased a big vehicle worth between $35,000 and $40,000. This is a poor investment, and I would perhaps have done the same thing. The government must do their thinking for them to make sure that their financial future is secure. We are currently creating homeless people. When these veterans reach the age of 50 or 60, even if they have received money, they will not have any more. Even if we talked until midnight and repeated that they should not have done this or that, the government must do their thinking for them, as it did for the veterans of the Second World War or of the Korean War, like myself. However, if they had given me $200,000 or $300,000, I would perhaps have done the same thing as these young people did and I would be broke today.

I am fighting for the benefit of others because in fact, I was treated very well by Veterans Affairs Canada. I think that I receive a reasonable pension. During my entire life, there have been a few hiccups, as I just mentioned, when I had to pay. I kept silent because they did not want to understand that the physician had withdrawn from the system. That is why the provincial government is not paying him. Perhaps we should take a look at the Charlottetown administration. Perhaps we might find a few surprises because there is a certain arbitrary element, but what do you want us to do? We are alone, whereas they form an entire group specialized in the art of blocking payments.

We can say that this is not a matter of life and death, but if I could only win in this case...

I am sorry for talking too long, but I was a lawyer for 36 years and I am driven by the force of habit.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Crombie, your time has expired.

Monsieur Renaud, if you would finish your answer, I have a suspicion that Monsieur Sylvestre wants to comment as well.

[Claude Sylvestre]

I would like to say a word about security. When you receive a 50% pension, it amounts to $25,000 a year. If you have 45%, at the time of your demise, your spouse only receives half of that. If you have 50%, when you die, your spouse will continue receiving the same amount and if you have 100%, you will receive $50,000 a year until the end of your life, and not only till the age of 70. With regard to the charter, we are not that much affected by it, but that must be the reason why we are being abandoned. We have to pay extra amounts. Previously, we did not have to pay for a pair of glasses and we did not have to pay for dental care. Now, pursuant to the established legislation and regulations, we are required to pay $103 for dental care.

However, do not try to get a copy of the regulations, it is impossible.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Sylvestre.

Mr. André, you have four minutes.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you for being here this morning.

We are very familiar with your file as well as with that of Ms. Matteau, from the Quebec region, who is asking for a return to the monthly payment.

This lump sum payment is something new in the new charter. You have been involved in the movement for several years. Have you received more complaints regarding this single lump sum payment than you received about the old charter? I would like to hear what you have to say about this.

Aside from this, you have gone through many procedures in order to help other veterans to get services, and this seems to be complicated. The Charlottetown administration is an institutional organization. Was it easy for you to get service in French?

[Elphège Renaud]

They are practically non-existent. It is something very rare. As far as we are concerned, we can muddle through, but that will not necessarily be the case for someone who belonged to the 22nd Regiment, which is a French-Canadian regiment. During the entire period of his service, even if it lasted five or ten years, the soldier worked in French, he had no opportunity to learn any English. As far as I am concerned, I took some courses that were given in English only. I did not understand a word of English, but I went to the courses anyway. During my paratrooper training course, I told them to put a parachute on my back so that they could see what a guy from the 22nd Regiment was capable of. Even so, I did not understand a word of the entire course.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

When you communicate with the people in Charlottetown to defend your cases and those of the people around you, you have difficulty obtaining services in French?

[Elphège Renaud]

Yes, when we are able to get in touch with them. We do not have access to the people in Charlottetown. When we call, someone in Montreal answers us, and then we are transferred somewhere. It is rather like a maze, it is complex. What does someone who is not too familiar with those things do? He gives up. I am president of the association. On Wednesday mornings, between 7 and 10 a.m., coffee time, there is a line-up in front of me. Because I was a lawyer, people think that I can solve all of their problems, but that is not the case. Most of the time they are petty claims. People tell me that they claimed something but that payment was refused. The only thing they are told is that they can file an appeal. Even if they do so, if they have no new information to bring forward, the decision remains the same.

As my colleague said, they are judge and jury. We can never win with them. I am not talking about pensions or those kinds of things, given that lawyers defend veterans and I believe—I think we need to be honest about this—that they do so very well. I am talking here about petty claims. I do not want to fight for these petty claims because people can manage even if they have to pay. However, it is another story when the lump sum payment offered to a youngster aged 23, 24 or 25 who has lost both legs above the knee is $200,000. That is not very much money per inch.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

The Australians, for example, have changed their system. They used to pay a lump sum, but they went back to the former system for the reasons you explained. But you, on the ground, did you receive fewer complaints concerning the monthly payments under the former system?

[Elphège Renaud]

There were none. Well, in fact there were a few. It is normal; it is only human. Some people found that they never received the amount they wanted, for example, if they were expecting an increase of 10% or 15% and they were offered 5%. That is only human. It was easy to solve. We argued that it was not a legal matter, that physicians has assessed that percentage, had made the decision, and that the department had offered the percentage in question. I am not negative, on the contrary. When the department is right, I do not contradict it. I tell the client that the department is right. I tell him, for example, that his injury does not justify a pension in the same amount as someone who has lost both his legs. We have to be logical. I also defend the department. There is no use blaming it all the time.

As I said in my little presentation, the charter is not all bad. I said so when the ombudsman came. I had the opportunity to speak for much longer. The minister was there. I told them that the charter was not all bad. The people who adopted it are not all stupid. We must not go too far. What I find very important is the lump sum amount. For the same injury, England offers $800,000, whereas Canada offers $276,000. Why? If the $800,000 is wisely invested, it can generate a considerable income, at least much more than $276,000 can.

When I came here to testify, I did not expect everything to be solved. I believe that if we could just settle the question of the lump sum amount, that would be a major victory. What exists now must be done away with. It is unthinkable.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

We would have to go back to the old compensation system.

[Elphège Renaud]

The current system is unthinkable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Renaud and Mr. André.

Mr. Stoffer has a brief response.