Thanks for that.
I guess I approach the question this way. Again, I'm happy to see the change. I think it's a move in the right direction. I'd even say it's stronger than that; it might be the right answer on that file. Where I'm troubled in this is that, as a reservist having lost a friend of mine from the reserves overseas and multiple other friends from the regular force overseas, it seems we had to wait until the death of Corporal Cirillo to go public before this got addressed.
Now I could be wrong and I don't understand the production of policy, so maybe I am wrong. But this is one of those things where not only do you need to do the right thing, but you also have to be seen to do the right thing. The perception was that it took someone dying at the war memorial to identify that there was a difference between benefits for the reserve and regular force, and we think that this should have been identified when Mr. Boneca, the first reservist to die overseas, was killed.
This was also addressed by Mr. Parent when he first took over office and was addressed by Mr. Stogran when he held the ombudsman's office.
So yes, I'm very happy with this announcement. What I'm scared about is how long it's taken us to get here. If we have flaws in this document that we're looking at in front of us at this moment, are we eight years from the next hearing to implement that? That's my concern, but I do support the change in that benefit.