The minister and others have indicated that the benefit of the doubt for that particular case—when they were in opposition—should play as a major factor in terms of possible compensation down the road. I don't know how many people we're talking about; we're talking about a large number of people.
Would the minister himself be able to say very clearly that he or his department is going to use the benefit-of-the-doubt analysis over and above what you normally have in order to achieve some form of compensation for people who are claiming they suffer from Agent Orange or Agent Purple?
The concern I have is about someone who was at Gagetown a week after the spraying occurred, smoked for 45 years, and has cancer. Some of that cancer may or may not be linked to Agent Orange, but it also may be linked to his smoking concerns. How then would you be able to adjudicate some sort of compensation package for him if he claims that his cancer was caused because of Agent Orange forty-some years ago? That's going to be quite difficult to do, isn't it?