I'll answer your question by going back to the commitment that this is a living charter, that the living charter gaps would be corrected within two years of introduction. That was done because there was no scrutiny of the legislation in committee, as you are well aware.
On that basis, I am very reluctant to suggest that one thing should be done ahead of the other. That is assigning a priority. Like I said, I think families are important, and there are tremendous gaps in the care of families right now. I can give you an example that I gave at the Senate. It's a true story.
We had a soldier who died in Afghanistan. The family received the death award. The spouse, who had two children, somehow gambled the money away, for whatever reason—we can't legislate against personal choices—and then she committed suicide. Now we have two orphans. Under the Pension Act, these two orphans would be receiving a non-taxable stipend every month. Under the new veterans charter, they receive nothing, so the grandmother who is looking after them is seeking benevolent assistance.
Families are important. Mental health for families is important. Mental health for children is important.
Rehabilitation is important. If you don't have good case management in rehabilitation, then you're flushing the water down the drain.
Economic benefits are important. If you don't provide the basic essentials of life, if somebody has to live below the poverty line, then you're asking him to make a sacrifice that I don't think you should ask him to make, because he's made a sacrifice on behalf of this country.
So no, I will not assign priorities.