Veterans Affairs Committee on April 27th, 2010

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

In the interests of time, to allow the parliamentary secretary to ask his question, I want to thank you both for your service.

Mr. Sylvestre, I notice you're wearing the Dutch pin. My parents were liberated by good people like you. So thank you, and thank you for your service. Thank you for raising the issue of the modern-day veterans, those who need the help.

Merci beaucoup.

[Claude Sylvestre]

I'll be in Holland at the end of the month.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

All right. Excellent.

[Claude Sylvestre]

That's the last time they'll have a military ceremony. I'm going by myself, though. I've gone the last five times.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Wonderful.

Merci, monsieur. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We'll move on to Mr. Lobb for four minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming here today.

Just on the lump sum benefit, you've talked about how, in your experience, you've witnessed that there have been many who've spent all their lump sum payment and so forth, and you're suggesting that it be spread over a period of time. You're suggesting that it run parallel with the earnings loss benefit, then. They would maintain the earnings loss benefit, but also have a separate payment for the lump sum, which is for pain and suffering. Is that the suggestion?

[Elphège Renaud]

When I say that there could be a two-pronged approach to payments, I mean that there could be a lump sum payment that would be the final one. It could be in the amount of $50,000, or something like that, that would be used as a downpayment on a property, as start-up funds for a small business, or something like that. Compensation must not take the form of the final and comprehensive payment of a lump sum. A small amount could be given. The person is leaving their environment and leaving the military to start a new life. This could therefore be helpful. It is just a suggestion. Following that, the person would be granted a monthly pension. The important thing is to ensure the person's financial security.

I understand that even if the department gave $2 million to a person who had lost both legs, it would be a commendable gesture on the part of the state, but it would be bad in a way. This would not serve the individual well because the state has to think for him or her. If the persons spends that money, they will find themselves in the street. In 25 years' time, if the soldier has nothing left because he acted badly, he cannot blame all of this on the department. If he acted inappropriately, he acted inappropriately. The state must think for him. It must therefore be a monthly pension.

Moreover, I do not believe there were problems relating to Second World War or Korean War soldiers whose cases were settled. Personally, I have nothing to say in that regard. It is true that I had injuries that justified the pension I was given. It was not difficult to evaluate.

As I said earlier on in my presentation, if the department had given me $200,000 at the age of 20, I might have reacted in the same way as these young people. I think that the lump sum payment should be eliminated. Sometimes people say that the applicants are not acting in good faith or with bad intentions, but in fact, that is not true. I met with people who, like you, were sitting around a table. They were wearing shorts, so that we could see their legs. When we know that a person has been granted $200,000 for those kinds of injuries at the age of 20, it is hard to swallow in a country like ours, in Canada. I think the country is on the wrong track in this affair. That is my opinion.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you. I have one final, quick question.

I'm sure in the news you see, likely in the sports pages, from time to time that hockey players who have just recently retired may file for bankruptcy after earning millions and millions of dollars, likely under the same premise you make.

Would you support a lump sum payment if the veteran could lay out a clear plan about how they would like to invest their money or spend their money? If they had a clear plan on how they would like to use their money, would you support a lump sum payment at that time, if they could clearly lay out the plan they'd like to follow?

[Elphège Renaud]

I would agree with any formula that would protect the veteran so that their financial security would be assured for life, in connection with the injuries they suffered. If you believe that the solution is a lump sum payment, you will have to prove it to me. However, as I have stated and I will repeat, the state must think on behalf of the individual. Human beings being what they are, it is so easy to spend.

Any formula could be established, but personally, I am seeking the financial security of the individual and young people today do not have that. That is not what we are in the process of creating. As we speak, they no longer have the money they received. If they do not do something else in life, they are already the future homeless. Any formula could be the right one as long as it ensures the financial security of the individual.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Renaud and Mr. Sylvestre.

Also, since Mr. Henwood is still in the room, a couple of members have alluded to this, but just let me say on behalf of the entire committee that one of the things we would most want you to hear is that we have a deep gratitude for your service to this country. We're very aware that the rights and freedoms and democracy we enjoy today are there because you were willing to serve. We want to thank you very much, not only for your testimony but for your service.

[Applause]

[Elphège Renaud]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank the members of the committee for listening to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You're welcome.

The meeting is adjourned.