I just want to make two points. First, when we consider the old and the new, there have to be similarities and things passed on. One of the problems is that the language in all the legislation is not the same. That comes down to the terminology, to the words and the definitions. For example, what is meant by “permanent severe impairment”? How is it broken into “chronic and persistent”? It should be clear to the veteran, medical professionals, and VAC what is meant by each specific term.
The other thing we have to note is the new Veterans Charter has converted non-taxable financial benefits into taxable income and that's wrong.
We're also against the fact that at the magic age of 65 you start to lose things and they're not replaced. For example, if I were still in the military and I had an impairment I could claim for SISIP. It would pay me and I would also get 100% of my salary. As soon as I retired that would drop to 75%, regardless. So a person in uniform would get 100%-plus, but a person out of uniform would get 75% or less. That's wrong. That's all I wanted to say.