I think this is a classic example of the need to look at the different contexts in the U.K. and Canada.
In the U.K., much of the programming is provided through agencies that are external to government. They have a large cohort of charitable organizations and other formal organizations that deliver benefits and services to veterans, unlike in Canada, where we have a legislated Department of Veterans Affairs and a very clear legislative framework and mission and mandate for the support of veterans. In the U.K., if I understand correctly how their covenant works, it's a reflection of how communities and all the organizations that support veterans' programming have acknowledged and recognized the basic concepts of what is important in supporting veterans.
In Canada, we have more of a statutory framework. Our bill of rights evolved out of the notion that it would be good to have some basic principles of fairness and respect and so on to help guide the department and support veterans in the process. The bill of rights is a policy statement that reflects and guides the Department of Veterans Affairs and informs veterans of what they should reasonably expect from government and the department in the benefits they apply for and how they are managed and processed. It's actually a different context.
That said, the basic principles are of value in both of those contexts. They include showing respect for veterans, trying to provide the best quality of service that we can for them, expectations in terms of timely management of their claims, and so on. All of these very fundamental tenets are laudable.