I think it's fair to say that, from a strategic perspective, it's where we and where our minister would like to go. At the end of the day veterans serve, they make an enormous contribution. Some of them serve for lesser or greater periods of time. Some of them come out with no challenges; others with many, and many complex challenges. For all of them, the end state should be the same; veterans and their families should feel that they have the supports in place to move from the military environment, to remove the uniform, and to transition into civilian life wherever that may be, and have that same sense of purpose that we all strive for. If you look at, essentially, the social determinants of health—financial security, education, health, and so on—those are the things that, I feel strongly, we should be enabling and supporting veterans to achieve as they move from a uniformed life into civilian life.
It's captured under one notion when I use that term “wellness”, but essentially, that's where we believe our programming should take us. That's why things like adequacy of the recognition benefit, the non-economic benefit, is so important. The adequacy of the income support benefits, the earnings loss benefit, the effectiveness of our rehabilitation programs, the caregiver recognition benefits—saying to a caregiver, your contribution is valued, and here is some financial recognition for that purpose—it all goes to that end state, from my point of view, of having a family make their contribution and then have support as they come out of service.