Thanks for the kind words about my advocacy, first of all. I really appreciate them.
Regarding the lump sum, Mr. Oliphant, the reason they implemented the lump sum, the national finance committee of the Senate was told, is that this lump sum will help people get a start up in life. They can use their disability lump sum to buy a house, start a business, or whatever else they need.
I have a serious problem with the fact that the lump sum is being recommended to be used for something that World War II veterans had in separate programs. They had small business start-up loans; they had mortgage assistance. So the reasons for creating the lump sum, for me, are bogus under those auspices. Given that a lump sum is given to disabled people, I think it is a bit morally or ethically questionable that we give a lump sum to people in their time of greatest need and distress, and that's usually at the time that they transition out of the military. It's a very difficult time in most people's lives. Even for the most level-headed people, it would be a far stretch for them to manage that money well.
Why are we breaking 90 years of a proven track record of providing a lifetime disability pension award to those people for a disability that lasts a lifetime? Why don't we continue doing it?
In addition, to get back to your question about the lump sum existing with other benefits, if we compare the chart of what benefits exist in the charter after April 1 with those that existed before April 1, you will find that, all things being equal, the only thing that dramatically changed was that Veterans Affairs now decided to take on or duplicate programs that already existed—SISIP, long-term disability, as well as vocational rehab. Take, for instance, the Canadian Forces income support for low-income support: barring the fact that it is a completely inadequate amount to help anyone who is in dire need, it existed in the same amounts in the war veterans' allowance.