Thank you, Mr. Angus. That rather fits in with one of the other questions I've had here this afternoon.
The truth is, that's one of the reasons the government moved to a new Veterans Charter. As you well know, we stood in the House and supported it. I think there was unanimous agreement and all-party support in the House of Commons, with virtually no debate.
It is something the department had worked on for a number of years, and it was really in response to the very question you're raising. There had been basically no adjustment to how Veterans Affairs did business from World War II on. They could see the changing needs of modern-day veterans, if you will, and this was a response to them. Basically, the whole approach to how we treat veterans has changed as a result of this new charter.
The new charter, as you well know, is supported by all veterans organizations in Canada and by all parties in the House of Commons, including your own. That's really the point of the new charter: recognizing the new-age veteran.
In a nutshell, the old system really wasn't achieving what it should with our new modern-age veterans, in that those who qualified would get a pension, then be kicked out the door and be forgotten. I hate to make it that short and be that blunt, but it really wasn't serving them or their families well. The average age of these veterans coming out was and is today 36 years of age, and that small pension basically, in many cases, to be very honest with you, kept them in perpetual poverty. There was no thought to retraining them, no rehabilitation. The only way they qualified for any programs was if they had a disability.
For all of those reasons, we basically changed how we deal with the new force veterans. Part of it, of course, is a recognition of some of the differences in the new veterans coming in, and a big emphasis on mental health—there's no question about that—and rehabilitation.