Thank you very much.
Because I'm so new, I haven't filled out my paperwork, which I'm going to do.
Lee-Anne, it's wonderful to see you, by the way.
I think what's really important is when we're looking.... Is it legislative changes, or is it improving policy and process as we move forward? I think mandate letters really need to be considered as we move forward with what the role of VAC is. I will use my previous CAF experience of being told, “Well, we don't do that. It's not in our mandate letter.” It isn't because there are bad people there. These are people who are short of staff, but that is not an excuse when you're trying to access services. Only the Canadian Armed Forces can fill that gap, so when we look at mandate letters, for example, it has to be that VAC reaches out to you rather than you trying to find VAC.
Even if you choose to not do something at that point as a veteran, that's okay, but we were told that's not in their mandate letter, so I think you probably need to review the mandate to make sure there's no gap.
Have things improved? Absolutely, and I believe other committees are going to talk to that very effect. However, you can't just talk to the CAF or the RCMP about that. You have to talk to VAC, probably at the same time, so I would suggest maybe not legislative but policy change.
The next thing you need to have a look at is that you have to name it. Include the term “woman veteran”. It's not a dirty term. It's not a qualifier. Whether it be in mandate letters or whatever, you need to disaggregate “veteran”—not all the time but at times. When you're talking about it, call it what it is. If you hide the language, it doesn't exist. That's my culture background coming in.
As you see, there may not be legislative changes right now. I don't have that depth of knowledge; I will have to pass that to my colleagues. However, I would suggest to start there. Even on your committee, in everything you talk about, talk about women veterans. I think that would be wonderful.