Like Lieutenant Richard, I supported the modernization task force. What should have happened was that the department should have looked at the Pension Act and modernized it to take into account the changes that have occurred in Canada, because there should have been a continuation, not a revolution. The new Veterans Charter does not bridge the gap between what existed and what we have today.
What we needed to see was the older legislation modernized. We needed to make sure that everything that applied to veterans then applies to veterans now, with changes that reflected the changes in Canadian society and the government's responsibility.
We're saying, for example, to bring back the pensioners training regulations. That would mean that there's both vocational training and university training, so that we, people like Mr. Fraser and me, can apply to the federal government for jobs that require university education as a minimum requirement.
We also say to get rid of the lump sum and reintroduce the non-taxable benefits that were guaranteed to people back in 1945. Why is the modern veteran considered a different character than the wartime veteran?
In Canada we believe in equality. As far as I'm concerned, the new Veterans Charter may have been considered good for veterans, but it was anti-Canadian. It discriminates against people in the veterans community. When all of you in the House and the Senate supported the charter back in 2005 because you felt that it was anti-veteran not to support it, you were being anti-Canadian.
The social contract between you, the government, and us, the people, should be similar to every other social contract in this country. If you do not do away with divisions in the veterans community, then you're continuing to push forward with discrimination, and that is against basic human rights in this country.