“Pension” is probably a bit of a misnomer in this context. It is compensation, and it splits primarily into two pieces.
The disability award, which compensates for pain and suffering, is non-economic. It's the part that compensates through a one-time lump sum payment of up to $250,000.
The other part is economic compensation. If there has been an impact on someone's ability to earn income, then that's what it compensates for. Because it replaces income the individual would have earned, this may come into question, as you suggested.
Conventional thinking was to go up to about age 65, which is also a point at which other retirement benefits, superannuation, and so on, kick in. Given its policy objective, the program would go to age 65. If someone is permanently disabled and receiving only 75% of income up to age 65, it's the policy rationale for providing that one-time lump sum award at age 65. It's 2% of all the lost earnings that would have been received over a lifetime.
There's also an additional benefit that Mr. Ferguson didn't mention, which is quite important for those who are most seriously disabled. It's a benefit that recognizes the loss of a career path or a career opportunity because of having such a serious disability. It pays a monthly amount through three grade levels that range between $500 and $1,500, depending on the severity, and it's a lifetime payment that in fact continues beyond age 65.
We have a safety net program for individuals after age 65, which is the time when lost earnings stop. If they are in low-income situations and don't have other various retirement streams, as most individuals would have, they would then become eligible for Canadian Forces income support. It is a fairly basic level of support, but it's a level of support that continues indefinitely, regardless of age.