As I mentioned in the opening comments, I think you'll find a very rich ground for comparison by looking at the G-8 benefits and those of the Commonwealth. I'd like to think we've borrowed the best from at least the Commonwealth countries we've talked to, and they from us. One example I gave is the case management system, which is New Zealand. They have a good one because they don't really have any other, other than their pension benefits, so they have to use the community benefits in the North Island and the South Island. Their veterans are not few, but they are far between, and they do a remarkable job. So we've refined our case management system based on theirs, and they were quite fine with that.
We use the job placement program that the Ministry of Defence in the U.K. has used as part of our new veterans charter. It's very, very successful there. The U.S. is looking at our OSIs, our operational stress peer support system...to model it in there. So there are several examples of where this collaboration has made a lot of sense for all the parties. I'd like to think we are in the position of having the best of all four worlds, or all five worlds, and from your review, you'd be able to tell us whether that's an accurate assessment. I think it's been very good.
Certainly all four countries, including us, are very much focused on operational stress and what the effect of that is. We could call it battle fatigue, or whatever it was years ago, but now it's become apparent that it's a very dangerous thing for the military culture just to assume that it's safe and wise for soldiers just to, as it were, suck it up rather than deal with it. We realize the consequences of that attitude of just sucking it up, of how difficult it can be both in doing one's military duties and in transition to civilian life. Focus a lot of attention on there. You'll hear about that in your deliberations, and I think it's having a lot of payoff.
With regard to the health care review--and Ken can elaborate on this--this was announced by the minister, I think, probably in October 2006. There had been some reviews going on through the Gerontological Advisory Council before then, but it had a very intense political focus at that time. The Gerontological Advisory Council and the six veterans organizations released a report that called for a comprehensive review. They had the features of removing all the complex eligibility rules that had built up since 1946. They are very complex and they're very hard to navigate, and the cost of navigating that system...they are resources that could be directed towards care itself. Some of the health outcomes are impeded by that. There are a number of veterans who are not eligible for benefits right now, and there are a large number of veterans who are only eligible for the most expensive benefit, when maybe what they want is a less expensive one closer to home.
So that review has been examining that, and I don't think it's complete yet. I think it's still being reviewed at the political level and the administrative level. I think the standing committee's report on that subject would be very timely if it were to come relatively soon.
I don't know if I've covered all the subjects you wanted me to cover, Madam.