Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for coming here today.
I want to try to go down a couple of avenues. It's my understanding that my colleague across the floor, who I'm good friends with, through another committee--and I have travelled across the country with him looking into penitentiaries---brought up this brochure example. It's interesting that he would bring that up, because we've done an in-depth analysis, and he targets that one thing, and I'm not so sure that you've done the in-depth analysis. But are there not, on top of the individual who's paralyzed, a lot of other programs? If they are not employed, they get 75% of their wages, and if they are unemployable, that continues on, on top of the lump-sum payment. I think it was characterized that there was this lump-sum payment they had to live off for the rest of their lives, and I don't think that was very clear.
Secondly, there's all the other suite of services that help that individual become rehabilitated, get back into the workforce, which is the ultimate goal of the program. It is done not on a category basis, for everybody who is paralyzed; rather; it's done on that individual's situation. They might have one child, they may have six children--who knows? It's based on an individual analysis, and that's where I appreciate what you said in your opening statements, because it was clear that the cornerstone of the program is to offer a comprehensive set of programs that allow that individual to integrate back into as much normality of life as they can. It's based on that.
I've listened very closely to all the testimony that's come here. You've taken it on the nose big time from a lot of people at this committee--you probably know that, because you read a lot of the testimony--who advocate, quite frankly, to close down Charlottetown completely, it doesn't work.
I want to ask something relative to that. I think there are some issues. I'm not saying they don't exist. There are probably a lot of issues that have to be worked on. Nothing is perfect. But to characterize that our veterans are not being treated with respect and dignity... We went to Charlottetown and we viewed the operations and met the people there and met veterans who work in that operation. There is respect and dignity, I believe, from what I saw. Of course, they are showing MPs the best side possible that day, I'm sure. We've also had testimony to say that your front-line people are fantastic and treat us with great respect and dignity. There are some structural things we perhaps need to look at in revising this charter.
The spectrum of information that we've been getting--and I am leading to a question here, Mr. Chair--is broad and wide and diverse. It's healthy to have that discussion, but the insinuation that you are less than professional on that scale of respect and dignity... I don't think you should walk away from this committee today, from my point of view, with that observation.
I would like to lead back into that argument that we've heard, that for some reason there's such dysfunction because the operations are in Charlottetown and not in Ottawa. What are your views on that issue?