I think I alluded to that at the start. A program that is oriented towards wellness and reintegrating Canadians into society is a very good approach. That is recognized in a number of other countries. Either they're modelling their programs on ours or we've modelled ours on theirs.
Having said that, I will note that it is not a panacea for every individual. The new veterans charter could not possibly foresee the critical injuries that have occurred in Afghanistan, where people need more than what is provided under the current system.
I can give you another example. A veteran coming back from Afghanistan who has lost three limbs shouldn't have to rely on charity to make improvements to his home because his home is not designed efficiently to look after his needs. If that is the result of the new veterans charter, then we have to look at the gaps and we have to find some solutions.
I think it was a program that was well intentioned, but I think it had an insurance model in mind. I don't think the insurance model is sufficiently structured to meet the needs of the modern veterans.
I would suggest that you invite as a witness to your committee Mr. Bruce Henwood, the chair of the special needs advisory group. You might have heard of their committee. They meet regularly with people who are considered to be high-level disabled veterans. He has some unique views on what is wrong with all the elements of the current charter.