Mr. Chairman, certainly the English word “accountable” has become a word of much contention des finances énormes, ces jours-ci. What are the options to have something? First of all, any drafter would look very closely at this language, more closely than perhaps the author of this document has had an opportunity to. Yes, there are problematic words in here, for sure. There may be a need for greater precision with regard to the meaning of some of these words. Don't forget the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself has language that is elastic, and there are some people who object to the elasticity of some of this language in terms of how it has been stretched over the years.
One of the risks you take when you use large language is that it's given large interpretations that the authors may not have intended. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things you could do if you wanted to soften this down considerably in terms of being a legal instrument is in the context of accountability under the new Accountability Act, where the House of Commons declares this to be a legal bill of rights for veterans and the standard by which the House of Commons will hold the department accountable to it.
Now, that relationship is between the department and the House of Commons. The veteran may still be standing out in the cold wondering when his or her needs get addressed. It's all very nice for the department to be accountable to the House of Commons by this, and perhaps some veterans would take comfort in that kind of regime, but it doesn't give them the mechanism they as individuals might want to go to assert their rights vis-à-vis the government.