I think that would be a fair characterization. Yes.
We are concerned about the implementation. We are concerned about promises that have been made about this living charter concept. We are concerned that it's just taking too much time to come to some rational conclusions.
We are afraid that we're going to see the same trend that we saw with the Gerontological Advisory Council report Keeping the Promise, which was trying to simplify the eligibility criteria grids for the health benefits. That came to naught. We now see a report that is in front of the minister, and we would expect that the minister would give us a reply, would give us at least an analysis of some of the issues that we have brought forward.
Some of this work is going on in internal audits. We're worried that they're not coming to the right conclusions when they're looking at these programs. You know, rebranding something from “job placement” to “career transition services” is nonsensical when the success rate is 3% in placing people in jobs, which was the initial objective of this program. Let's focus on what's important: the economic loss benefits, which are too low; the disability award, which is too low; and the fact the disability award is provided as a lump sum when sometimes it should be provided sequentially.