Veterans Affairs committee  Super. I would first of all convert the critical injury benefit to actually raising the lump sum across the board. Second, on the family benefit, I would just merely remove the family benefit and open up attendance allowance to all recipients, NVC clients. Third, what I would do for the retirement benefit is essentially scrap the retirement benefit and just extend ELB until death.

Veterans Affairs committee  We already have a mechanism in place for that: the accidental dismemberment insurance plan. We expanded it to include all ranks back in 2003, and yet this dismemberment benefit does not recognize people who are suffering debilitating psychological injuries. Yet you have situations where you have paraplegics who are able to fully function and work.

Veterans Affairs committee  Super. It might be seven and a half minutes, but I will proceed.

Veterans Affairs committee  Okay. Super, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. We have much to do so I will skip further formalities. The proposed programs that bring us here today have been accompanied by an inundation of feel-good political announcements.

Finance committee  No, they haven't approached the veteran community to explain that date. The only briefings that have been given have been to parliamentarians without the knowledge of the veteran community. It sounds as if that's the date because they don't want to pay back to 2006. I think we have to compare that to the veterans' service when they're in the military.

Finance committee  That's right. It's not just the financial resources. If we look back at the SISIP class action lawsuit, veterans were paying out of funds that were rightfully theirs the equivalent of a million dollars a month in legal fees to fight that battle. I am most concerned about the emotional costs.

Finance committee  In my mind, it's a no-brainer. This could easily be amended to go back...and before we start complaining about costs, let's look at what these soldiers have given up for us. We are talking for the most part, about the most disabled veterans being affected by this. This will force them into, as I said, a bitter legal morass over years, which not only will inconvenience them but will likely destroy their health and their families.

Finance committee  No. In fact, repeated questions to the department have come up empty. But we could probably extrapolate some number. We're talking about $9.2 million for the earnings loss benefit over a five-month period. If we extrapolate for the years prior to that—there were declining numbers of applicants going back to the beginning of the new Veterans Charter, which we could probably extrapolate—we are talking probably about less than $70 million to compensate totally.

Finance committee  Thank you.

Finance committee  We're talking about the whole gamut. Some of the veterans may have just been released from the forces and, during the transition period of, let's say, up to 24 months, or sometimes longer, were retraining. Maybe they're suffering a knee, ankle, or shoulder injury. These people probably will have moved on with their lives and are no longer collecting the benefit.

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. You have much on your plate, so I will skip further formalities. On May 29, 2012, coincidental with the announcement not to appeal the class action lawsuit involving the Canadian Forces insurance plan known as SISIP, the Government of Canada committed to cease offsetting the Pension Act pain and suffering monthly payments from four other plans: the earnings loss benefit, the Canadian Forces income support, the war veterans allowance, and civilian war-related benefits.