Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome here today. I think you've given some very concise, very important information.
I want to start by saying I'd probably disagree with where Mr. Stoffer came from on a couple of things. I want to make it clear why. Ever since we started this review I've gone back to the department to try to dig into what's going on, what's happening, and so on. I've become more of a believer in the charter, with its flaws, with the changes needed. I think it's fair to say we had people in here as witnesses who had individual problems with government, with the department, or it may have been with the politicians themselves. It was people who just simply said “We want to get back before the charter”, and so on.
What I understand is the whole point is the change in direction the former government put in place, which we all endorse, and that is, go away simply from the money and look at the long-term benefits and treatment and support for the individual and the families. They've answered a lot of that, particularly on the mental health side, on some of these things that just would not have been addressed that are being addressed today. I just want to get on there. I think we have a job ahead of us, but I think it's fully on us to ask, “How do we strengthen the charter? How do we make it better?”
Having said that, I know there are some legitimate complaints, and you are or we are addressing some of them. I guess the point is we know that one of the complaints we've heard is that government has not reacted to some of the recommendations coming in. Again, that's not your job so much as it is the minister's and the government's to do it.
If the recommendations that have come through from the review committee were in place--the big 16 we're talking about--what difference would that make in the kind of service you could provide?