Thank you, Mr. Stoffer, for your commitment to the issue and your commitment to both veterans and members of the RCMP who are retired.
I have a couple of questions.
My concern on the issue is mixing up fair compensation for work that members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP officers do with a pension plan that is actuarially based. I don't want any question of mine to be considered unsupportive of our military forces or for RCMP officers; it's the understanding that you can look at this issue in two ways. You can look at it as a benefit reduction when people reach a retirement age of 65 or you can look at it as a benefit top-up to allow them a standard of living until they reach that perspective.
Of course, it's always easier to look at it from the standpoint of a benefit that you receive. So if I receive a pension benefit and then lose something, or perceive myself to have lost something at a certain age, I see it as a clawback or a benefit reduction. If I am the actuary trying to sort out how to fairly compensate people in their retirement, I would look at it as a benefit increase to allow them to bridge until they get another benefit. It's not different from other pensions in the way it's looked at in a fiduciary or a fiscal way.
I'm wondering whether this is the appropriate way to compensate members of the Canadian Forces for their service to the country or whether we're mixing apples and oranges here. I'm wondering whether this is one question—fair compensation and veterans' benefits—or whether we should be doing this through the pension system.
Obviously, you think we should be doing it through the pension system, and I just need some help with understanding why it is you've come to that conclusion.