I agree with you that the principle is well founded. We should aim to have our citizens socially engaged and contributing to society. The programs in the new veterans charter were designed to do that, with the best of intentions, as far as I can tell. I must admit that I was there from the beginning, and I was a champion of the new veterans charter, both in 2005 and in 2006.
Having said that, I will note that the new charter, before it had come to fruition, by the time it was analyzed, and by the time it was implemented, unfortunately did not anticipate some of the critical injuries that are happening in Afghanistan. In that context, that is the flaw with the new veterans charter.
Try as you might, it is quite possible that somebody who suffers from a critical brain injury and somebody who has lost two legs and an arm cannot be made well and cannot be reintegrated into society. Unfortunately, the objectives of the program, which would be to make somebody well and to encourage him to return to work, won't work in that context.
So what you're looking at is, let's say, a private who's 21 years old and who has not yet been released, or who has been released, and who will be given a disability award. Some of that disability award might be used to renew his house, to make his house livable, habitable, because he is very disabled. Then, all he is guaranteed is 75% of his release salary, which is taxable. Well, I would suggest that's below the poverty line for that private.
By the way, that guarantee of 75% of income is not disbursements; it is simply a guarantee. If he is receiving superannuation or CPP benefits, the only thing that Veterans Affairs is doing under the extended earnings loss benefit is providing a top-up, which is taxable. Under the Pension Act, this same individual—and let's assume he has a family and two young kids, which is possible today—would be receiving a monthly pension for life, not taxable, and it would extend beyond age 65. Currently, under the new veterans charter, this extended earnings loss benefit stops at age 65, when probably his needs are the greatest.
Looking at the life course, which is what the new veterans charter was trying to do, it somehow failed miserably to provide benefits post-65. This is a flaw that we indicated right from the beginning. Does that answer your question?