I'll keep my comments fairly brief.
None of us have a grudge against the insurance industry, by any stretch of the imagination. Our concern is that the principles that are inherent in an insurance approach work well for houses, cars, and things like that, but they don't work very well for people, partly because it's very difficult to put an accurate cost figure on things, but it also renders, if I can use the term, the individual who's the subject of this sort of claim into a victim, almost, into somebody who has to defend the approach. From an organizational point of view, from a bureaucratic point of view, the insurance principle tends to drive you to minimize payouts, because the reward is the minimum that you can pay out, and it drives us in the wrong direction, particularly in bureaucracies.
I think one of our concerns is that the service income security insurance plan piece of work inside the Department of National Defence was built upon that principle, and a lot of those thoughts have progressed or migrated out into the veterans affairs side as well. We tend to see a lot of the programs in veterans affairs driven by that insurance principle. That's our concern with that one.
It's kind of an underlying or a foundational type of thinking that goes into the approach to some of these benefits, and I think that's really where our concern is. We need to walk away from that altogether and start looking at this from a human dimension and take that approach, as opposed to the insurance principle.