Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
All of us have expressed it in our own way, so I'd like to add my own thanks for what you do on behalf of the Korean vets. Thanks to Mr. Strathy for coming to the Elliott Lake unit's special celebration in mid-October. Thank you for making that effort.
If one could sort of categorize--and this may be an oversimplification--battle injuries, there are the very physical injuries that come from bomb blasts, grenades, and rifle fire. There's the trauma that comes from the kind of warfare that affects the mind. Then there's the whole range of chemical-related injuries that you talked about quite a bit today, which appear to have been the worst legacy of the war in Korea.
However an ombudsman is ultimately defined and whatever the role is played by such a person, is there a need for a general war-chemical strategy? Whether it was in Korea or Gagetown, or whether it was a small incident in a peacekeeping mission, many chemicals have been used over the years and they have changed with time.
Does the Australian study talk about a chemical strategy to deal with veterans afflicted by one or several types of exposures? We know that these things can manifest months, years, or decades after the first exposure. So can you comment on whether an ombudsman could help with the development of a strategy or framework to make it easier for veterans, whether they are Korean War veterans or otherwise, to access and have a more sympathetic hearing?