Okay.
One of the things said in regard to this homeless vet who's on the street and in a rather desperate situation is that it's hard to understand how looking at what's happened to this individual could not be regarded as a service-related injury. I'm having difficulty understanding that. I also wondered about the issue in regard to the military doctor examining the individual and saying, yes, they have a service-related injury, but then once that individual is released, and they're reassessed by a VAC doctor, they're not seen as having a service-related injury.
There has been evidence at the committee that VAC and DND are working on that, but the very fact that you raised it makes me very concerned that it's still there. How does that happen? How do we change that reality?