You're over four and half minutes, Mr. Lizon, and Mr. Parent, but thank you. I really appreciate that.
I just want to say, Mr. Chisu, I'm shocked that you're over 60 years old. You look great for your age.
I'll take some questions now, courtesy of the chair position.
I want to thank all of you very much for coming.
I am a bit surprised. I've never seen an indication of tax being a benefit. You've got taxes there and it shows them as an overall benefit. I for one am a New Democrat, and we're accused of being tax and spend, but tax as a benefit, that's a new one on me.
This chart, though, is a touch misleading. On page 9 you indicate that 50% of individuals are not receiving the permanent impairment allowance. If you took away the tax and the permanent impairment allowance, that chart just about lines up with the Pension Act from before. That's the difficulty we have in explaining the new Veterans Charter when you're comparing apples to apples, or apples to oranges. If you don't have the permanent impairment allowance, and if you took away the tax that was not taxable under the old system, that line is almost the same. Some veterans who figured this out understand the argument that the old Pension Act was better than the new one, and this, I think, is where their argument comes from. If you don't have access to PIA, or you have challenges and difficulties due to PIA, that chart only applies to 50% of those individuals. As you just said, 50% aren't receiving it. Am I correct?