:
Good morning and welcome to the 48th meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Normally we meet in a more intimate room, so I don't have to exert my voice so much. We're very happy to be here today.
Before we begin, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my friend from Sackville—Eastern Shore, Peter Stoffer, for the excellent work he did chairing the last couple of meetings of this committee. On behalf of the committee I'd like to congratulate you, Sir Peter. For the record, His Majesty, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, has recently knighted our colleague Peter Stoffer for his services to both the Netherlands and Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
[Translation]
Today, it is our honour to welcome the Honourable Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, and his deputy minister, General Walter Natynczyk (Retired).
[English]
Welcome, Minister. I remember when we both used to sit there, and I remember we both behaved when we sat there, so I want you to see that the work we did when we sat there is an inspiration to all members here, because they're all going to behave throughout this meeting, not just because I'm holding the gavel.
The minister will make a 10-minute presentation and then committee members will each have six or seven minutes to direct their questions to the minister and to the deputy who, obviously, also outranks him. I guess the record should show that we have here the minister, the deputy minister, and the parliamentary secretary; and the one with lowest rank is the minister.
[Translation]
Please note that Mr. O'Toole and Mr. Natynczyk will be with us for 90 minutes, after which we will adjourn the meeting.
[English]
Mr. Minister, you have the floor.
[English]
Thank you very much. It is good to be back here. I remember fondly, in my first year in Parliament, being a part of this standing committee. It's good to see you and the clerk. Some of the members of the opposition were at the committee at that time, as were some of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus. It is an honour for me to be back appearing before you as minister, particularly after a profound period of progress and reform in the last number of months.
I'm also joined, as you said, by my deputy, retired General Walter Natynczyk. You stole my joke, Mr. Chair, about the retired general being deputy to an average retired captain. I'm very fortunate to have Walt, and I have long known about his passion for military families and for veterans.
Also, from my department I have some senior leaders here who will have additional information should the committee require it. I have Bernard Butler, director general of policy; Michel Doiron, the ADM for service delivery; and, Maureen Sinnott, director general of finance.
I want to start my remarks by saying that my time on this committee was formative in my development as a parliamentarian and with regard to the knowledge base I'm working from as Minister of Veterans Affairs. Your reports, both those from the time I served on the committee and the report on the new veterans charter, have been formative in my consideration of legislation and reform. I want to thank all 54 of the witnesses who appeared before this committee as part of your intensive look at the new veterans charter. Some are here in the audience today.
Then there's my background before Parliament. As many people know, I did serve 12 years in the Canadian Armed Forces in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I'm proud of that time. When I left the uniform, I worked in the non-profit and “support our troops and veterans” area with my Legion, Branch 178, and with the True Patriot Love foundation, which I, along with some other passionate Canadians, helped create. I've also worked alongside amazing Canadians from coast to coast, some who have served and some who have not served, in groups organizing walks, with Wounded Warriors, Treble Victor—I'm wearing their pin today—and Canada Company.
This is the background I bring and this is why I was so honoured when the asked me to serve in this role.
[Translation]
My team has worked with veterans groups, the veterans ombudsman and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The work done by the deputy minister, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk, is really something to behold.
[English]
I want to thank all parliamentarians and all veterans groups for giving me your priorities and working with me going forward.
Your study on the new veterans charter was an important one, and the most important finding, beyond your 14 recommendations, was that the approach to wellness, transition, and support for the veterans and their families is sound. In fact, I think on page nine of your report you urged keeping the new veterans charter and its approach to transition, but you clearly said that there needed to be a better charter with fixes.
I'm sorry, it was on page two. It works for most veterans, as you said, but “'most' is not enough”, to quote your report.
I agree that most is not enough. The new veterans charter was brought in by the last Liberal government, implemented starting in 2006 by the Harper government, reformed in 2011 by the Harper government with the addition of the Permanent Impairment Allowance supplement, leading up to Bill now before Parliament, which was introduced at the end of March and is the most comprehensive update to address some of the issues in areas in which the new veterans charter was not meeting all needs. It was meeting most, as your committee report showed, but we need to fix gaps to make sure that it serves veterans and their families and strives for excellence in that regard.
[Translation]
I am very happy that Bill , the Support for Veterans and Their Families Act, has been introduced in the House of Commons. It makes essential changes to the New Veterans Charter.
[English]
Bill builds upon the work of this committee in your study on the Veterans Charter and addresses some of the gaps that were highlighted over the last few years by the ombudsman, by several veterans stakeholders, and last June by this committee.
I'll go through those briefly, now; they are before Parliament awaiting approval.
The retirement income security benefit is perhaps the most urgent fix needed for the new veterans charter, highlighted clearly by the ombudsman, highlighted by the Royal Canadian Legion, naval veterans, and a range of other stakeholders. It was a problem on the horizon, Mr. Chair.
Very few to no new veterans charter veterans are 65 now. But it was clear that as some of them hit the age of 65 and lost their earnings loss benefit, they would have a steep decline in their income in their retirement years post-65. That was an unintended gap in the new veterans charter, when the income supplement of earnings loss ended. We've remedied that gap, particularly for those who served in the military, were injured, and did not have pensionable time to provide them with pensionable income at that stage of life.
The retirement income security benefit will kick in at 65 to ensure that in retirement there's a predictable amount of financial security for the rest of that veteran's life, based on 75% of their pre-65 Veterans Affairs revenue. Important to note, the survivability is sound in this. The surviving spouse gets some financial security on the death of the service member, something that did not exist with the exceptional incapacitation allowance under the old system, Mr. Chair.
So we're learning. We are very proud that we've addressed that with a retirement income security benefit.
The second benefit in Bill is the critical injury benefit. That's a benefit that will pay $70,000 to a veteran who has been injured in a sudden, traumatic event. This is another area in which the new veterans charter did not foresee all circumstances of men and women injured from service. The disability award in the new veterans charter—the so-called lump sum—is calculated when the recovery of that veteran takes place and their permanent disability over a lifetime is assessed.
What that disability award did not take into consideration was the pain and suffering of recovery: the multiple surgeries, time in intensive care, and time in recovery themselves after these surgical interventions. There was no recognition of that, and no pain and suffering compensation for it. It's a gap that the critical injury benefit will address.
Also in we provide the family caregiver relief benefit for the most seriously injured. When a caregiver in the home—a spouse, or even an adult child—is really becoming the informal caregiver to that veteran. Veterans Affairs will often pay for a professional, contract caregiver in a home and for support. But we all know that those are nine-to-five accommodations. The new normal for families living with a serious injury changes their life. This will give relief by providing that family member almost $8,000 tax-free per year to use in any way that helps them overcome some of the challenges of caregiver fatigue.
We know that all families bear the stresses of an injury, mental or physical, in the household. We've been trying to address that through additional counselling for family members for operational stress injury support for the families and use of the Family Resource Centres for veterans and their families upon release.
This latest family caregiver relief benefit is yet another benefit intended to help the families of the most seriously injured. This is an area I will continue to explore as minister, because I know the critical role that family plays in the wellness of a veteran.
We've also expanded and made eligibility criteria easier for the permanent impairment allowance, adding approximately 305 new veterans to that lifetime permanent impairment allowance payment. That's another element that was recommended in your standing committee report last June.
We've also implemented what I called respect for the reserves, to remind Canadians that without the men and women who serve in our reserve units across the country, we would not have the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces that we have today. We've ensured that class A and class B reservists earn the same earnings loss benefit entitlement as regular force, or class C.
It's about respect. Just a few days ago, it was a year from our National Day of Honour celebrating the 12-year mission in Afghanistan and honouring the sacrifice. Twenty-five percent of those people were reservists. We have also added at least an additional hundred case managers and a hundred benefit adjudicators to deal with some of the backlogs.
[Translation]
These changes represent fundamental improvements to many systems, services, supports and programs that veterans need in order to successfully make the transition to civilian life.
[English]
I could go on, Mr. Chair, but I see my time is up.
Colleagues, I urge support of Bill . I want to thank the standing committee, the ombudsman, and the veterans. I appreciated that you came together with your recommendations. Since we've moved on many, I hope we can pass Bill C-58, and I look forward to your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it's good to see you are back in the chair.
I thank the minister and the deputy minister very much for appearing before us today. I thank both of you gentlemen for the fine work and representation you did on Canada's behalf recently in the Netherlands for the 70th anniversary. I thank you both very much for that.
Minister, I just received an email from Gord Jenkins regarding Bill and what you told him. Bill C-58 was introduced by the government, yet we haven't seen second reading of the bill yet. It hasn't even come to this committee yet. However, in the email to him, you are implying that the opposition parties are delaying these reforms.
Mr. Minister, with great respect, you introduced the bill. The government introduced the bill. It hasn't been brought before this committee. In fact, this committee has had two cancellations. We have been asking for Bill to come to the committee. We have some amendments, and we have indicated to the parliamentary secretary that we could pass the bill fairly quickly, but we can't do that unless we actually have the bill come before the committee. We understand now that you have indicated that this bill will now be part of the budget bill, which means that this bill does not have to come to the committee. It will all be wrapped up in the budget omnibus bill, which basically means that no veteran, no veterans' organization, and not even the opposition will have an opportunity to debate this bill in committee.
Mr. Chairman, after 18 years in the House of Commons, I find it rather unusual that when a government, either Liberal or Conservative, introduces a bill and it doesn't come before the appropriate committee for us to do what we are supposed to do: review it, look at it, and pass it. If you wanted clear passage of this bill, we have already indicated that we like this bill. There are some changes that have to happen. There is no question that we have some amendments for it. I have indicated that before but, sir, we haven't seen the bill.
Can you explain to me how the opposition is holding up this legislation when we don't even have the bill before the committee?
:
Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.
Certainly, you do have many years here in Ottawa, sitting both on SCONDVA and on this committee. In fact, you are the only member of this committee who voted for the new veterans charter.
I have made a commitment to veterans to get these reforms passed before this Parliament rises. That is my commitment. Most of Bill was recommended by this committee, so the substance of the bill actually came from this committee. The 54 witnesses I referred to all supported these reforms and want to move on them. Two years ago, the ombudsman recommended what has become the retirement income security benefit.
My concern, with all due respect, is that the committees have talked about this since your early years on the new veterans charter and the veterans affairs committee. We need action. It's a fair comment to say there is more to do. I have said that this is a living charter and there will be more to do, but these reforms are important. These are benefits and programs for veterans and their families that I've told them, including Mr. Jenkins, will pass in this Parliament.
My initial discussions, including emails you sent out that were sent to me by veterans, indicate that you would prefer more committee time, more study, and ultimately delay of these benefits before July. I won't allow that to happen. You can fairly comment that there is more to do, Mr. Stoffer, but since most of Bill comes from your recommendations, I hope to goodness we can get these passed. Bill is still on the order paper, but now with your opposition day motion yesterday, challenging the priorities of Bill , I guess—that's the only thing I could see that that day really tried to do—it is clear you wanted to delay, and I won't allow delay to happen when I have made a commitment to veterans.
:
Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.
The critical injury benefit was meant to address something that the disability award did not, which is those cases of someone suffering a traumatic injury, but because they made a full recovery, their compensation under the disability award, the lump sum as it's known, was very low. In fact, all members of this committee can point to veterans who would fall into that category, such as veterans who spent time in the role 3 hospital in Afghanistan, in Germany in intensive care, or sometimes had multiple operations, but because they had a positive recovery—because our role 3 hospital in Afghanistan was one of the best in the world—their recovery put them at a disadvantage under the new veterans charter disability award. I don't want to name names, but we can all think of cases where someone had that injury and got a very low disability award. That actually impacted their wellness because they took that to mean that the system did not acknowledge their traumatic period of pain, suffering, and recovery.
The critical injury benefit is meant to try to address that. At the same time, it also addresses some of the most seriously injured men and women from Afghanistan, but the critical piece is that it's now compensating for the pain and suffering of recovery. It's in addition to the disability award and it very much also could apply while the person's still in the Canadian Armed Forces recovering. It's a quick payment. The hope is that they recover and stay in the Canadian Armed Forces, but it's an inherent pain and suffering and recognition award.
It is meant to be very targeted. Regarding the new veterans charter, the biggest challenge that the ombudsman has pointed out is the myth that has developed around it that there's only this lump sum and that's all a veteran gets. We're all trying to dispel that myth because it's not fair to Canadians to leave them with that impression. What the new veterans charter does is focus on transition, so early rehabilitation and financial and medical support, and then for the more moderately to severely injured, it stacks benefits on top of one another. That makes it a little more complex.
So there's a disability award, there's potentially a critical injury benefit, and then the veterans will get earnings loss while they're doing rehabilitation, an earning loss benefit that is an income supplement. They may get the permanent impairment allowance. They may get a permanent impairment allowance supplement. For many of them, at 65 they will then get the retirement income security benefit. As you see, it's a stacking approach. What we're trying to do for the most seriously injured is to streamline those stacked benefits—the PIA, the PIAS and RISB—into a single pension for the most seriously injured.
Thank you, Minister, and thank you, General, for appearing before us.
Minister, thank you for the wonderful program in the Netherlands that you included me in. It was remarkable. I was speaking to the general about it. Frankly, it was an overwhelming emotional experience.
While both of you certainly earned the respect of everyone around this table, it does not at all mean that we agree with your approach to the solutions that our veterans need to the issues that ail them daily.
You speak of Bill . Mr. Stoffer has already addressed his concern about it not passing. My wager is that it's not going to get through this committee and then back to Parliament and passed, not because we're delaying it, but because I don't think it's going to happen in time before this Parliament rises, which is regrettable.
That said, proposed section 44.1 of that legislation—we've talked about this—defines those who are entitled to this benefit of the single lump sum payment as a result of a single injury at a moment. We've had the conversation about the fact that PTSD sufferers are essentially excluded from this because PTSD isn't that single event. PTSD often arises and manifests itself later.
I've been at briefings and, quite rightfully, I've been told that there are other benefits available to those who suffer from PTSD, but when you do not define PTSD as a traumatic injury, Minister, which it is, and do not provide for some form of lump sum compensation for those people later, then you marginalize those people—and there are thousands of them. In fact, I'll bet you that the ministry doesn't know how many people are suffering from PTSD out there right now. We've had people like Jenny Migneault having to chase your predecessor for help. I put it to you, sir, that while there may be other programs available to them, they are insufficient.
I have a question for you. You have indicated that while this legislation does not completely close the gap, it goes a long way in filling the gap. Even the veterans ombudsman appeared before this committee in April and said that while it is addressing some of the issues, it is not yet enough and it doesn't clearly meet all the needs of our veterans. Is it your proposition that this is all enough? If it is not all enough, and there is more to do, why aren't you doing it? We've given you, in many reports, the things that need to be done.
The only thing I can think of as to why you're not doing it is that your has said, “I'm sorry, Minister, this is all the money you're getting. I'm in austerity and I have to balance a budget in an election year, so we're not going to give you the money that's needed to complete all their needs.”
What is it? Have you done everything that you can do, particularly for those suffering from PTSD, and if not, why not?
:
Thank you, Mr. Valeriote. There was a lot there that I'll address in sequence.
Certainly I saw Madam Migneault here today and I look forward to speaking more with her. I've already learned quite a bit from her perspective as a caregiver and the compassion she shows, and I appreciate those in the home helping people with operational stress injuries.
Second, on your statement—is this enough?—and your pessimism about this bill not passing, I sensed that there would be delays in Bill so that's why it's in the budget implementation bill. It will pass. I've made that commitment.
Is it enough? As I said to Mr. Stoffer, fair criticism is to say, there is more to do. In fact, when your party created the new veterans charter—I know you weren't in the Parliament when it was created—it was intended to be a living charter. I've said repeatedly since I became minister that that's what it will be. What I hope is that we pass Bill , which addresses some of the critical items this committee recommended. That's why I was hoping for swift passage. Then this committee could do what it did last year, which was to look back and see whether the new benefits, the new reforms, the new programs in Bill C-58, and in the last two years on mental health have been having an impact, and then plan a new set of priorities. That's how this committee should run. As minister, I would count on that input to make sure that we're meeting the needs, not just today but in the future.
On PTSD, let me say this. In my work before I became a parliamentarian supporting military families, this was my area of focus. It is a huge priority for the government. By the end of this year, we'll have 26 operational stress injury clinics open across the country. The first one didn't open in Canada until 2002. This is trying to address a growing need.
When it comes to the critical injury benefit, what I've said to veterans is, this benefit is open to any type of physical or mental injury. There is the possibility of somebody suffering post-traumatic stress from a single occurrence. The issue with operational stress injuries is that no injury is the same and no treatment regime is usually the same. They're very individualized injuries, so this is inclusive.
But what veterans and parliamentarians should not do is start comparing physical injuries to mental injuries. If the critical injury benefit ends up being primarily for serious physical injuries, that's okay. We're trying to address the seriously injured. It's a tailored benefit that's not meant to apply to 700,000 veterans in Canada. At the same time, permanent impairment allowance is primarily paid to people with mental injuries from service. Is that inherently unfair to somebody with a physical injury? No, it is not. The new veterans charter tries to tailor financial support, medical support, and rehabilitation to the needs of the veteran, whether their injury is physical or mental. So it's not fair to compare who might qualify; it's about getting them the support they need.
Formally, I thank you both for your service. I've really never had the opportunity to do so. To my colleagues here, all of whom have direct military experience on this side of table, thank you very much for your service. I'm the only one that doesn't have direct service, but my immediate family had 100 years of direct service.
I'm hoping, Minister, you can confirm my understanding of the misinformation that is out there with respect to lapsed funding. I've taken the initiative to print out the public accounts over the course of the past nine years, as well as the planning and priorities documents. My observation, as I'm looking at the figures, is that in 2005-06 we had a budget of $2.85 billion, and in 2013-14, that was up to $3.6 billion. Over the course of those nine years, our estimate of what we were going to spend, over nine years cumulatively, was $30.6 billion, of which we actually spent $30 billion. We actually spent 98% of our budget.
Then, during the course of the year, with the planning and priorities documents, I notice that every year we asked for additional authorities—every single year. As a matter of fact, in three of those years where we didn't ask for additional authorities, we would have actually exceeded budget, which I understand is not allowed. The reality is that all of those additional authorities weren't required. A budget is an estimate. We want to make sure we have the funds. We ask for additional funds because we want to make sure no veteran goes unserved.
Minister, in your opinion, lapsed funding doesn't mean lapsed services in any way, does it? Does any veteran go unserved because of a lack of funds within the veterans affairs department?
:
Mr. Hayes, I'm very glad you asked this question because it has caused a lot of confusion for veterans and their families, and it's an issue that because of its moderate degree of complexity can be used to actually sow seeds of confusion.
You're exactly right. A department cannot spend more than its estimated budget, its estimate. In fact, it does have to go back to Parliament to get more funds approved, so every department needs to estimate what they will spend and try to do it as accurately as possible. Estimates that make it within 1% or 2% of the actual spend is very good budgeting.
We don't know what actually goes out the door until the public accounts come in, which is over a year later. Then you try to learn from the public accounts where you did not spend.
Veterans Affairs is a very unique department within the federal government, in that of the $3.5 billion or so of a budget, 90% of that goes to payments to veterans and their families. With statutory benefits, once a veteran or their survivor is eligible for that benefit, in most cases it will be paid until the end of the life of that veteran.
In recent years we've seen some lapsing funds where in the public accounts cycle we don't actually spend what is fully estimated. The majority of that comes from the aging demographic of the traditional war veteran, World War II and Korea. As Mr. Valeriote so rightly noted, among these inspiring gentlemen we were with in the Netherlands the oldest was 97 and the average age was 91 or 92.
That generation where 1.1 million Canadians served in World War II is now in their late eighties to nineties. I'll give you an example of how challenging this is. The estimates do not anticipate veterans passing away over the course of the cycle. That will go into the estimates for the following year. When we assumed government in 2006 there were approximately 230,000 World War II veterans in Canada. In the last year it's around 90,000. It's the same with the Korean War. There were almost 15,000 when we formed government and less than 10,000 now.
We see most of the lapsed funds coming from the fact that, sadly, we're losing a large number of our World War II and Korean War veterans. That's why these commemorations, the 70th of VE Day and of the liberation of the Netherlands and Juno last year, are so profoundly important, but in terms of lapsed funds, this is why.
Other programs that are demand driven under the new veterans charter, for instance, in career transition or something like that, if those programs aren't being taken up as quickly or by as many veterans as we might like, that's where we actually have to learn and make changes. But with some lapsed funds it's due to the nature of the fact that 90% of our budget is statutory payments to veterans and their families.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chicoine.
I enjoy sitting on this committee. You've been here since my time here, and I appreciate that.
I made two specific announcements, one at CFB Valcartier, Quebec City, in relation to at least 100 case managers. It will be more than that, but you've hit the nail on the head. I'm getting final Treasury Board approval for the exact number, but it will be greater, hopefully quite a bit greater, than 100. It's the same with the benefit adjudicators. I've used a minimum floor number, but there will be more hired over the coming months.
Going back to the case managers, we are going to try to see where there's additional acute need throughout the country and build in more flexibility to how case managers are deployed. In my announcement I said we're going from an average ratio of 1:40 of case manager to clients and we'll be going down to 1:30, but we're going to try to build in flexibility.
The benefit adjudicators are directly related to what we learned from the Auditor General. As you said, there were some unacceptable delays in the processing of disability payments for those with mental injuries from service. That was unacceptable. What's interesting to note is that we asked the Auditor General to look specifically at this issue: were our investments meeting our targets? In terms of the processing of benefit claims, they were not. So our hiring of those adjudicators will try to bring down the wait times identified by the Auditor General to meet the departmental targets. Once we get through that backlog, we can then get to a point where we can start meeting our targets of having a disability claim processed within six to eight weeks.
The Auditor General did say that vocational rehabilitation: the retraining, the re-education, that sort of thing, was proceeding okay. But in terms of the financial benefit processing, we were not meeting our expectations. All these positions will be hired in the coming months and there will be more than 100 in both categories.
:
Absolutely. I think the new veterans charter was created to try to focus on wellness. Each year we have about 1,200 men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are released from service for medical reasons. In some cases it's from a service injury. In a very small number of cases, thankfully, it's a very serious injury. It could be in a theatre of operations or in training.
In the old system, it was very important to be in a special duty area and injured. That's not the case now. At the end of the day, the goal has to be getting those people to a good place after their military careers. The more ability they have to recover, to rehabilitate, and to find new purpose and meaning in a second career, the more we have to facilitate that. The goal of the new veterans charter was to focus that financial support and rehabilitation quickly to help with transition. Because if transition goes well, they leverage their military careers into great careers after service.
There are some who will have a very difficult time transitioning, whether from physical or mental injury from service. Those people need additional supports, clearly. That's why in 2011, our government introduced the permanent impairment allowance supplement. It's why Bill has the retirement income security benefit. It's why we're looking at the critical injury benefit.
This committee, in its report last June, said that there should be a focus on moderately to seriously injured veterans because they have the hardest time transitioning. I have essentially followed the advice of this committee, of the ombudsman, and others to try and target that. The less serious the injury, the greater the ability of the vocational rehabilitation training, up to $75,000, to get that person into a new career.
As I say to a lot of veterans, there are three pillars of recovery. There's the health of the veteran, the wellness of their family, and the second career. I put family in the middle because it's critical. If the second career doesn't go well, it affects the other two. The living charter concept we built into Bill with the purpose clause in proposed section 2.1 is very similar to recommendation 2 of your report in terms of our ongoing obligation to our veterans and their families.
:
Thank you for the question, Mr. Opitz, and thank you for your service for many years in the Canadian Armed Forces, and the work you've done with veterans on transition and hiring programs. It's appreciated.
When I unveiled the retirement income security benefit, which was a key priority of this committee, of the ombudsman, of the Legion, of NATO vets, and of a number of organizations addressing this issue at 65 for moderately to severely injured veterans, at that time I said that I wanted the department to move toward a predictable and understandable lifetime payment for our seriously injured. People understand what a pension is in terms of that permanency.
With the new veterans charter there are a lot of supports and benefits, but because they're stacked on top of one another, we have potentially three or four lifetime benefits. They're different things stacked on top of one another: permanent impairment allowance, permanent impairment allowance supplement, retirement income security benefit. We need to streamline those into a single payment that's understandable for those veterans that are eligible. That will give them peace of mind. It will also allow Canadians to know that support is there.
As you slide down the scale of serious injury, mental or physical, the focus truly has to be on the rehabilitation piece, income support through earnings loss, vocational rehab, retraining, and re-education to get into that second career; all of this whether or not they have accumulated pension time in the Canadian Armed Forces.
If you joined at 18 and wanted to be a soldier, sailor, or airman for the rest of your life, and an injury changes your plans at 32, what is the best option if you can physically and mentally get into a new role that's good for you, your family, and your future? Let's facilitate that. With these fixes, we're going to start getting the balance, as the committee said, not just working for most veterans because most is not enough.