I'm glad you've asked that question, because as you know, the idea of a social covenant is fundamental to what we're doing here today and what we do in the veterans community and what I hope this committee looks at on a regular basis.
I know the term was used last week before this committee that there's a disconnect. There's a disconnect between what the minister is now saying publicly and what the Department of Justice is arguing in the class action Equitas Society lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court.
You'll find our letters to the editor attached to my brief, by the way, in case you want our full response.
Our feeling is that the government should be ashamed that they would go into a court of law and argue that there is no such thing as a social covenant that protects our veterans, and that's where I see the disconnect. I found that the minister—and I don't mean to be disrespectful—saw the light a couple of weeks ago and said: wait a minute; I agree with all of that, that there's a social covenant, there's an implicit contract, there's a sacred trust. He said that in a press communiqué, and we welcomed it.
But we still see the Department of Justice arguing in the courts that there's no such thing as a social covenant. It wasn't even a necessary argument to deal with this case. Why did they raise it? Why didn't the minister instruct the Department of Justice to take that off the table? That is sacrilegious in the veterans community.