Thank you, Chair.
I 'd like to read a couple of words into the order.
In 1917, then-Prime Minister Rob Borden said that “you need not fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country” and that “no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.” Those were words that were said.
There was a covenant between the soldier, military personnel, and the country that it was going to look after you. When we come to today, we have the minister saying:
As I explained to 25 Veterans stakeholders a few weeks ago, the plaintiffs in the current court proceedings argue that the promises of past governments are binding on present and future governments. While this may sound reasonable, their argument could have a far broader impact than perhaps intended. If accepted, this principle could undermine democratic accountability, as parliamentarians of the future could be prevented from changing important legislation. Hence this is not about the issues raised by the plaintiffs, but about unintended consequences to the very functioning of our parliamentary democracy.
We've seen governments come and governments go, and especially this government has a tendency of breaking covenants that previous governments have worked upon, which we had come to accept. We broke the covenant that at 65 years old you're going to get a pension. Now it's 67. So you start working and you have a contract with the government and all of a sudden it's, “No, we're going to change that contract to 67”.
Having said in 1917 that we would not turn away from you, in 2013 we say, well, we can't do that. We have examples of covenants that are broken. I'm sure in your case right now this is the highest covenant that this government is trying to break.
I wonder if you would like to make a comment on that.