On the administrative support side, the integrated personal support centres were partly modelled on the U.S. model. They were well ahead because of their years in Iraq and the number of casualties they've had. They have been doing very well in terms of administrative and casualty support to families and all taht kind of thing, but objectively, when it comes to things like suicide, there are so many variable differences in the way we operate, in the duration of our deployments, in the way we treat and consider mental health conditions, and in our levels of stigma. That may account for the differences. For example, among Canadian Forces members, we have a significantly lower rate of suicide compared to our American colleagues.
For example, some governments don't have a ministry of veterans affairs—like the U.K.—so the follow-up and the services provided to their veterans are quite different and are primarily taken on by private charities. On the other hand, they have a far, far higher number of private foundations and charities focused on the welfare of former armed forces members than we do in Canada.
Other than that, I can't comment much on the differences on the casualty support element. As far as the clinical support is concerned, there are significant differences, but it is widely recognized by NATO and by our allies that the standard of care we provide to Canadian Forces members is very, very high.