Yes.
I will speak in French, as it is easier for me, even though I am bilingual.
I'm working at the University of Toronto now, but I am from Quebec.
As has been pointed out, the medico-legal model does not work well for rehabilitation in general, and it is even worse for work rehabilitation. This is a problem that affects the worker's compensation board, as well. As you said, it works well in the case of house or car insurance. It ties the cause to the incapacity. In this case, with an injury or accident that occurred on the battlefield or in the course of military life, insurance has to be responsible for the consequences. In actuality, modern scientific models show that is not the case. A person cannot dissociate the amputation of their right leg from their psychological condition, their family problems or their difficulty returning to work. All those factors are intertwined for that person.
Insurers, in general, want to avoid having to provide compensation related to those other problems. As I noted to this committee, that is a major problem, but one that holds a lot of interest for me. I was very shocked to see that the same thing was happening with Canadian armed forces and veterans. Veterans and members of the military need insurance coverage that protects them from the consequences of incidents that can arise in combat or in the course of military life. When they become injured and have to undertake rehabilitation therapy, the insurance company inevitably tries, for obvious reasons, to impose limits on access to services.
It is not a matter of providing unnecessary services, but a range of services are needed to treat the person as a whole. That is the trouble with the medico-legal model in insurance.