Okay. SIr, obviously, you've focused over time on the financial restraints, and you've made some very good points.
One of the reasons all the opposition parties at the time, including the Conservative Party at the time, supported the new Veterans Charter was that it was a step up from only giving money to helping to rehabilitate people to get back into society, along with their families. More importantly, it was a living document. When these problems arose, as you said, with unintended consequences, the government of the day could look into it and make suitable changes. The charter would actually become an improvement and not a reversal of support for these veterans. It's the reason that all the parties unanimously moved forward on this. Unfortunately, it's now 2010 and a number of recommendations haven't yet been adopted.
It's very clear regarding the lump sum, but many people have told us that you can't give young people some $200,000 and expect them to be fiscally responsible. As you said, they'll go out and buy a car, or a house, or something, and the money is gone. What happens then? I'd like to hear your comments on that.
Secondly, Okill Stuart of the National Council of Veterans Association was featured in The Gazette, basically highlighting the fact that the government is transferring Ste. Anne's over to the Province of Quebec. It will mean that future veterans will not have access to hospital beds that some of our World War II and Korean veterans now have access to. Although he didn't say this, the premise will be that the medical care for modern-day veterans, in terms of what World War II and Korean veterans now get at the Perley, Colonel Belcher, Camp Hill, Ste. Anne's, etc., will eventually be transferred to the provinces.
Would you agree with a statement like that? Modern-day veterans under care will not be allowed access to hospital beds that are paid for by the federal Department of Veterans Affairs. Do you agree with that statement?