I might just suggest that many of the changes we're recommending would necessitate sort of a change in, let's say, the income stream of the veteran. If we are looking for, let's say, 100% income replacement, logically one might argue you could go back. But I know that's fraught with danger. I know there are difficulties with retroactive legislation. We've seen that with assisted clawback. It's a very difficult thing to do. Equity suggests maybe we should in certain cases.
I thought you might have been asking the question—if you don't mind me answering another question which you didn't ask—about budget.
I stated that we're dealing largely in our submission with seriously disabled veterans, permanently incapacitated veterans. The budget shouldn't be a relevant factor. We have been confronted with that argument for eight years. The budget of the government will not sustain an amendment to the charter.
Can anyone really support that view in today's world, where we're dealing with permanently incapacitated veterans, seriously disabled veterans, who are suffering and are not being compensated at a proper level?