Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I really do appreciate the challenges you have in your jobs. To try to put a value on compensation for those who have served is very difficult. Just to determine, for instance, the potential earnings of a veteran, and what kind of compensation a veteran should have for a personal injury, is really difficult, because there are a lot of variables there.
I'm not really a big fan of your term “financial compensation”, because that is almost as though you're measuring it, and you can't do that. There are too many variables. I like “financial settlement”, because it's actually an agreement between the client and the Government of Canada to say they're settling on this amount because they feel it is reasonable compensation for those injuries.
It's also about financial care. It's a dual approach. It's financial care and a financial settlement. I think there are two different issues here. I really like the department's needs-based approach. You're going to work with the veteran over a long period of time. I guess the issue really is what is reasonable as far as that settlement goes and then as far as the care goes. You mentioned the need to measure that care and that settlement so they don't deter the veteran from trying to seek other employment or from being able to rehabilitate both physically and mentally to adjust to their challenges.
Do you feel there has ever been a time when the department has taken the position that there was only so much money to go around, so a veteran would just have to accept a particular settlement, and that the settlements would have to be kept down? Or have you felt that as a department you've dealt with this fairly and that there has never been any pressure from the minister or the government to say there's a limit to the money? There is a limit to the money, we know, but have you ever felt that has been a challenge?