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 22e Régiment. I served in the Royal 22nd 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.