The unfortunate part is that André would receive the 75% at the senior private's level, as you've indicated. But if he were going to spend 25 or 30 years in a career in the military, there's a high probability he could have become a sergeant, lieutenant, or captain. But there's no pro-rating of that, and that's what we've heard is the major flaw within this: it doesn't give indexing for the possible advancement that most people in the military achieve. So there's a snag there.
You've obviously heard and read a lot of the testimony from people who come before us—the Legion and other individuals. They have been, I'll put it mildly, extremely critical of the new Veterans Charter. You may not agree with everything they're saying, and maybe they have misconceived some things, but they can't all be wrong. I'd like you to tell us what cracks or crevices you notice in the new Veterans Charter. And have you had the opportunity to tell your superiors within DVA that these are the problems you're seeing?
Surely clients must be calling you and asking what's going on here. When you see these cracks—and obviously a lot of it is legislative changes, there's no question, which you obviously have no authority over—do you have the right to advise your superiors, ADMs, and deputy ministers, that this is a continuing problem and that we need to address it? Have you noticed any flaws yourself with the new Veterans Charter compared with the old system? If you did, have you had the opportunity to forward those concerns to Suzanne Tining or the minister himself or, for example, to your ADMs?