Thank you for your comments and your support for veterans and veterans' issues.
First, as far as the SISIP issue goes, I agree. I heard a lot around the table in the two years that I was part of the committee. The talk at the time was certainly that they were moving ahead on the rehabilitation part of SISIP, that VAC was going to take it over and there was work being done in that area.
The whole insurance attitude towards dealing with veterans just doesn't work, as I stated in my opening discussion. There is a lot more debate and discussion in the report about that. It's just wrong. Let's say I serve my country, I'm injured, and I'm being released because of that. I'm trying to be rehabilitated and I'm on medication or being treated medically, but then they cut my salary by 25%, tax it, and then kick me out of an organization that I was part of since I was 17 years old. That just doesn't work.
Luckily enough, I had a wife who was working at the time and I didn't own a house, but I just about went bankrupt. I was trying to go back to school at the same time, so it was just... That's how I got involved in all of this. It was just tremendously difficult. I survived it, and then I said, “Well, you know what? We have to fix this”.
The attempt with the new Veterans Charter is there, but the SISIP problem and the economic needs... It's a fundamental imperative for sustainable success for veterans. If you can't have a successful transition out of the military, that's with you for the rest of your career or the rest of your life, and then at age 65, it gets even worse. So at the two ends, at the age end and at the transitional end, it's just a mess. We're trying to fix it. The recommendations we put forth will help in that area, but certainly the SISIP problem has to go away.
In regard to “the benefit of the doubt”, well, I've been in front of the appeal board many times, and in my position now I advocate for veterans all the time. It's something that is legislated. It's in the Pension Act. They state it every time in their decision. You can appeal it, but it really doesn't carry relevance, like the legislative hammer, so to speak, where you have the benefit of the doubt. In most cases, you do not.
On the level of knowledge and communication in most cases, even in my case when I got turned down the first time, I just threw it aside. I didn't know anything about it. I thought it was done. I was just lucky enough to have somebody take me aside and say that 95% of the cases are thrown out the first time around, so no, I wasn't done. “What?”, I said. It was an education to get through it. Even to this day when you go into basic training, I don't think they provide any information or communication strategies on VAC, which is going to be your major supporter if you are injured. They just don't give you that information. If you're in the navy and are injured or broken, it's, “See you later”.
So the “benefit of the doubt”, legislatively, in my own personal relationship with VAC, is always stated but rarely followed, In the cases on which I have advocated, it has certainly not been the case.
I hope that has answered your question.