That's a very good question.
What happens—we get a lot of this from the wives—when a soldier is injured, say in Afghanistan, is that they come back, and there's this initial gathering around. Then they find out that they will not meet the universality of service and they'll be removed from their employment. A process has been started and, if they are not severely disabled, they will get some retraining and then they will be on their own. That is causing tremendous hardship on a lot of families because, although you retrain somebody, that does not guarantee that they're going to get a job. It just means that you retrain them for the purpose of getting a job.
So the duty to accommodate—and then there is a reasonableness clause to that—is found. For instance, with the RCMP we had a young lady who had her leg shot off up in an interior town in British Columbia. She was able to retain her job within the RCMP in the province of British Columbia. Injuries like that in the military could very well have you retrained but then sent into the civilian world. The issue here is that normally a workers' compensation program ensures income, because it is the income that people are concerned about, not how much money they get. We are separating the veterans who want to stay in the military from their income source, which is the military, and we're taking the step of retraining them. But in all cases, it's not enough; they don't have a job at the end of it.