Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to touch briefly on what Mr. McColeman and Ms. Lambropoulos said.
You said it in your brief, that, essentially, there is frustration in regard to the complexity of it all. For example, if someone has a service-related injury and can't work, does income replacement means only the salary, etc., down through the line? It is complicated—I understand that—and it seems to be unnecessarily complicated. Do we need an advocate who is simply there and says, “No, this individual has given his or her life to the country, so there must be an automatic assumption that we are simply going to compensate and make sure that there is the financial security that should go with a full career”? You talked about financial goals and whether we should bring people up to the level of poverty. I would say that this would be a slap in the face to everyone who served.
Do we need someone who is given the authority to say, “No, we're going to cut through this, and we're going to make sure that we have been absolutely fair and honourable in terms of dealing with this veteran”?