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.