Well, I don't think it's appropriate to say that to something. I don't think, on the whole issue of medical release and the idea of when somebody is fit to serve, that it's a simple issue of relapse or not.
In fact I've been championing—quoted, or misquoted, in The Globe and Mail—sending people back with post-traumatic stress, because to my mind, if people are better, it's a good-news story. If people recover fully from their illness and want to continue to serve, we champion that; that's a success story.
When it comes to medical and medical limitations and release items, what happens is there are a few reasons for it. One is the safety of the individual and one is the safety of the organization around them. If you have a bad back, a bad knee, visual problems, dizziness to such a point where there's risk, and it looks like recovery isn't going to occur, then permanent categories are assigned and those types of things. However, I've had soldiers who I felt were fit; we send them back, and as they go into Wainwright they start getting re-exposed to the scenarios and they realize, themselves, that it's difficult.
I don't think it's appropriate to say that if you have a relapse, you're out. I think if you've made a good recovery and you have a relapse, we have to re-evaluate your clinical history and your stability in terms of being able to remain in the forces.