We were part of that consultation. So were other veterans organizations, academics, Canadian Forces members, etc. There was something called the Neary report, which provided the logic for basically improving on the Pension Act.
The intent of the Neary report was oriented towards care of families, better case management, rehabilitation, and the wellness program. However, if you read the Neary report, you don't see anything that talks about providing a disability award and providing economic loss benefit to a cap at 75% of salary on retirement. That was a governmental input at the last minute, I would say, which was a surprise to some of us.
As a matter of fact, when we were confronted with that reality, we asked the department to do some focus groups with Canadian Forces members to see how they would react to this. There were some misgivings. We were actually hoping that there would be an opportunity to discuss this in committee, but because the legislation was pushed forward--I think the legislation was actually read in third reading at a Senate finance committee, which had nothing to do with Veterans Affairs--I think we may have missed an opportunity to have a more sober overview of what the legislation really entailed, especially in the context of that breakdown between what the Neary report said and what the actual implementation was going to be.
I defended the new veterans charter. I did that in front of the media. I did that in Parliament. I did that at that Senate committee. Had I known what I know today about critical injuries and the lack of support to families, I would not have done that.