Thank you both for being here, and thank you, Sean, for being here again.
I'm going to try to narrow down to a couple of areas. Of the two I want to talk about, one is the inclusion of pre-Veterans Charter veterans into the charter, which is an issue you've raised that we have not talked about here: we have been talking about the review of the charter. The second thing will be particularly on income support and lump sum benefits. Those are the two areas.
I might preface this by saying that you may think you're not heard, but we are reviewing the new Veterans Charter. You may think you're not heard, but the Conservative government did appoint an ombudsman. There have been things that have happened that I don't think happened without your advocacy. Obviously you have a thousand recommendations—maybe give or take a couple of hundred. We're getting there, so hang in.
Let's go to the lump sum first. The minister has been here and has talked about the fact that the lump sum is part of the compensation for injury that, under the new Veterans Charter, people receive. There is an earnings loss benefit, there are possibilities for some other financial supports, and there is lump sum compensation.
Particularly, do you think we need to simply not have any lump sum, or do you think we need to have a lump sum plus ongoing sums, or a larger lump sum, as in the British system, with almost $1 million Canadian of lump sum?
Obviously there are two portions of income support. Lump sum is one, and the earnings loss benefit is another. But there are some options. What are you recommending to us to look into further?