Mr. Chair, it's really good and it's an honour for me to be back on the committee. As a veteran and as an MP, it's good to be here.
I've heard the terms “gung-ho” and “hurry up and wait” used. I heard both terms a lot when I was in the CF. “Hurry up and wait” applies both to serving members and spouses. I remember that term well.
I'm going to concentrate more on Mr. Griffis. I have a couple of questions.
Tim, I've known you for some time. Certainly, I think the program that you help grow and run under Dr. Westwood is really world-class. I think the more people—whether they are advocates in the Legion or True Patriot Love, or within VAC—see the impact it has, the better. I'm encouraged to hear about your expansion of services in French, which I think is critical. As well, your comments are welcome.
Mr. Griffis, I want to compliment you on your caregiver portion. Part of the reason I was involved in starting the True Patriot Love Foundation with a group of other people, was after Rick Hillier started the Military Families Fund and the challenges and the stresses on the family started being brought into the wider discussion. That is something that successive governments over the last 50 years haven't addressed properly, so thank you for your advocacy on that point. Canadians now understand it a lot more. That was something which True Patriot Love focused on specifically as the first major donor to the Military Families Fund.
My question is on the max injury award. I find, as both a veteran and a lawyer, there's a lot of confusion with this comparison to civil courts.
In a civil court a damage assessment is essentially a one-time payment. The government is looking at the lump sum right now, and is that appropriate, does that address it. The comparison to civil courts leaves out the fact that veterans will receive education and training assistance, the veterans independence program supports within their own home, often, depending on their status, a move post-CF, long-term lifetime assistance with home-based modification needs, health.... None of those are available in a civil court context for a negligence suit.
Do you think that the benefits, and the cost of those benefits, should be part of the discussion of a lump sum? They don't exist for someone in a civil court.