Just to follow up on the conversation with the Admiral, the numbers you were given were to get us in the door. If we were going to do a follow-on program it would get a lot more expensive than that.
I have a point on the MFRCs. I visited the MFRC in Halifax recently, and I'm from Edmonton and I spent time with the MFRC there. They seem to be pretty aware of taking on the veterans and they seem to be already moving in that direction. Maybe they're just doing it on their own initiative without waiting for direction, which I think is a good thing.
When somebody comes back after being away—they missed the 120 days point—and a couple of years later they say they're suffering now, and so on, we allow them to come back and obviously assess them and so on. One of the things that have always concerned me is burden of proof. I have a feeling that sometimes we set the burden of proof too high. I have seen, in the last couple of years, a more reasonable standard applied such that maybe someone can't prove it medically 100%, but it's a reasonable assumption or conclusion that their current condition is related to being there.
How hard are we being on burden of proof and are we softening on that?
Mr. Marcus.