No, and I would like to clarify here. When we talk about financial support, you have to differentiate between the pain and suffering award and the actual obligation you have to provide economic stability through the income replacement program. These are two separate issues.
When we talk of the Pension Act, that pension I get every month for life, that 45% for my back and ears, is a pain and suffering award. By court ruling, it should never ever be considered in an income loss replacement equation. We have to take that out of the equation right away.
The new Veterans Charter brought in some significant improvements. It's not all bad. The major issue was on the sacred obligation, and that obligation is to respect pain and sacrifice equally. If you're going to bring in a lump sum award, it has to be equal to what I receive as a pension, because no veteran should receive less than I do when he's lost his legs or other parts of his body or has suffered a serious mental wound. It's not parity. There must be equality in recognition of national sacrifice, and the benchmarks have been set by the Pension Act on the pain and suffering award.
Now, there's a discrepancy, depending on how long these guys live. It could be a million or two million dollars through time. If they live to 90 and were seriously injured at 25, we're talking about many years of pain and suffering awards.
I think it's important that we differentiate the two. I think it's important that we identify the good things in the new Veterans Charter. I think the issues that we brought up are important, like bumping up the 90%, like making that disability award at least up to $360,000, with the discussion of going back to the Pension Act. We are moving in the right direction. As far as the policy goes, I think they should have done it five years ago.