Mr. Chair, when examining the announcement of the bill of rights on the website--and it's on the vet website--you will not find any suggestion of force, recourse, or legislation. In fact, the words are “expression of rights”, which veterans have long identified as important.
What it doesn't say is that there is anything new or that the veterans have any new legal power to enforce the rights they currently hold. In fact, it suggests that along with every other Canadian, they're covered by the Privacy Act and the Official Languages Act, and we have the added statement that they have a right to know their appeal rights. Those appeal rights are already enshrined in legislation.
I wonder if the reason this is not part of any legislation is that it would add nothing new to existing legislation and that it would offer veterans absolutely no additional legal recourse or avenue of appeal. I view this bill of rights as a misnomer; it's essentially a mission statement for service personnel. So I wonder if the term “bill of rights” is really appropriate here.
We all want to do right by our veterans. I think that in the bill of rights in the U.S. Constitution, its overarching authority.... We've heard of the bill of rights that has force in the context of provincial legislation. Perhaps we need to suggest either that the veterans bill of rights be drafted in some sort of legislation that gives veterans at least one legally enforceable right they didn't have before, or maybe we should change the name to something that better reflects what this actually is.
From my understanding after looking at the vet website, it's service principles for Veterans Affairs. It's a mission statement for Veterans Affairs. It's a code of conduct. But to call it a bill of rights is really not what it is. It exaggerates the importance of what is being achieved here. I think we should call it something respectable. Our veterans really deserve it. If the government is not prepared to have some force, effect, and recourse attached to it, then really this is a misnomer.
It's up to the government members to explain a very simple question that we asked at the beginning of this discussion. What is the government's intent here?