My rationale is relatively simple. In “Keeping the Promise”, there was one recommendation. It was simple: put in a program based on needs. There was no need to rationalize. Yet we were told, after the fact, that basically this simple recommendation really meant there had to be prioritization.
In this case, we approached it from the perspective that there are fundamental gaps in three elements of the program: families, rehabilitation, and financial benefits. Those form a whole, so if you fix one but not the other, it's not going to make any difference to the quality of life of the veterans and their families. That was important for us. Plus, there was a temptation, even within the committee as we were receiving guidance from Veterans Affairs, to do the prioritization within the document itself. We don't feel that it is our role to do prioritization.
If the government wants to do prioritization, they can explain how they did their rationalization. We've given you where the gaps are.