We could shorten this meeting fairly quickly. Everything that my colleague Mr. Shipley has said is important, but the reality is that in the back pages here we talk about the legal status of this document, and also down below it says “...to avoid legal hassles over what was intended or not intended!”
This question has been asked of the parliamentary secretary twice: was the intent of this to be a legal document or not? The question is very difficult to answer, and I can appreciate that, because without legal opinion it's hard to say yes or no.
So I think before we talk about plasticized cards or mission statements, get the legal people in here and find out whether this or any reflection of this has legal standing, because we're talking about holding them accountable and responsible for all the decisions. The only way you hold somebody responsible politically is that you kick them out and you get someone new in, but to hold the department responsible is through the legal system. That's the only way you're going to do it. Unfortunately we have cases now--if you look at SISIP, for example--that are being challenged in a court action case. That's the only recourse these veterans have left.
So I think before we go anywhere further we need to get a legal opinion on whether or not this is just a generalization to give to veterans and say, “Here you go, God love you, it has no legal standing, so don't worry about it; it's just something nice” or “This is something that has legal standing, and when you get pissed off with the department you have something in your hand that can hold them accountable and you will have every legal right to challenge them”. That's really what the question is.
So I think we should hold off until we get a legal opinion.