No, I learned that lesson in 1997, when I went public to change things.
First of all, if I may just clarify, it is not the charter that has failings; it is the apprenticeship of implementing it. So it's the process of implementing, and it's whether or not the cash is going to the right places in implementing, whether or not it is the right number of staff in the right places, and if they have the experience. We're into a whole new world, so it's part of the process.
I spoke with the deputy minister last week, and I recommended that an advisory body like we were before, when we brought in the changes for VAC that ultimately led to the charter, be recreated with a variety of people to look at how the implementation is going and to provide advice to as high as the deputy minister.
The minister at the time used to listen in, but we used to advise directly to the deputy minister. I think that might be a very effective tool. When I had it approved through the Senate at the Senate committee, I had the minister agree that an advisory body would be created. We didn't squeeze them too much over the last year and a half because they were so busy trying to put it...but it's time now. It's time to have that independent body to advise and sniff it out.
In regard to the implementation, of course, it's never fast enough. I think maybe I would like to speak to you for a moment as a general and say that you will never have a general say he has enough. The aim of the general is to achieve the mission with the least possible casualties, so if he can get more to reduce casualties, he will do it. And that is in his mandate as a general. He must pursue every venue he can to reduce casualties to achieve the mission. So they will always come with a list. It's not because they're unsatisfied; it's because “I'm the guy who is court-martialled when those kids die unnecessarily”.