It's a very good point. Yes, obviously. It goes back to what I said earlier: where do we want to go? We need to have some kind of a destination point, which doesn't exist right now. People go beyond destination, and sometimes they have more benefits and income replacement than they would have if they had stayed in the forces. Sometimes they're not. They're before a destination, so we need to have that. I would certainly think it has to come from a recommendation from some of the government committees, whether it's the Senate or here. But outcomes, I think, are very important, or you'll never know when you're there. It's very hard to compare as well, if you don't have a defined outcome somewhere.
As far as the comment from General Dallaire, it's very true. National Defence plans for a mission, but they never plan for the impact of a mission, what the cost of the impact on the military veterans and their families will be. That's very important, but it's not part of the mission planning, and it should be. There should be money allocated right from the start in the planning of a mission to recognize that our families and our veterans and our serving members will suffer. Therefore, we need to.... Again, if we had an outcome, these sums of money that would be determined to be the cost of the impact would be easy to define.