Okay, that explains it.
One of the issues we just talked about was a federal government responsibility to provide health care for veterans. We transfer billions and billions of dollars to the provinces to provide health care. If we were ever to embark on—and the military got out of certainly veterans' dependent health care many years ago—reinstating that system, it would be countless billions of dollars, and it's just not doable. Maybe we need to do something. I have issues with some of the long-term care in Alberta, where we're not giving priority for beds to modern-day veterans, and I think that's an issue. But I don't think it's practical for us to go back and reinvent a veterans' dependent health care system. That is truly not affordable.
Mr. O'Connor, I totally support your recommendations there with respect to their being reasonable and sensible.
Mr. Kokkonen, and I guess General Gollner, on the insurance company mentality, and I've spoken about this before, the issues to me are not so much what's there, because there's a lot actually there, but we make it too difficult to access. We put the burden of proof too high. The insurance company mentality comes in where you have to come in and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are worthy of getting whatever it is. Do you think it's ever possible for us to reverse that philosophy? If somebody comes in with an injury or whatever, and it's reasonable, just get the benefit going, continue to do the due diligence, and if at the end of the day the person is not reasonably eligible, don't claw it back, but just stop it. Do you think if we just reverse that philosophy, get it going and worry about the fine details later, that we'd have the majority happy, instead of the majority, or a large number, at least, cranky?