Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the entire new Veterans Charter is clearly an attempt—and once again it transcends the government of the day—to unload the financial liability, the long-term financial burden, that the government carries with injured, wounded veterans, and I wouldn't have been speaking this way.... I certainly wasn't a conspiracy theorist early on, but when I observed for almost three full years that nothing was leaving the department in terms of engaging our elected officials on what should be changed as a matter of urgency, I was convinced that it's not just the lump sum issue, it's that entire charter.
I take it one step further: the social contract, as I describe in my paper on benefit of the doubt. Traditionally in legacy legislation, the first clause, one of the first paragraphs in all legislation, reads to the effect that any authority stemming from the legislation in question should be liberally construed and interpreted such that the recognized obligation of the people and government to their veterans and their families could be fulfilled. That is absent in the new Veterans Charter.
When I challenge the department, they suggest that's looked after in the Interpretation Act of 1985. What is not looked after in the Interpretation Act of 1985 is the acknowledgement that the people in the Government of Canada have recognized an obligation to look after their veterans. I think that characterizes the charter.