In terms of the work we do at the Health Council of Canada, we're very dependent on the provinces, territories, and the federal government for a lot of the information and the insights that they can bring to bear, because they're in the field and are responsible for delivering most of the services.
In terms of then responding to our findings and our recommendations from time to time, there's less take-up, to be fair to us and to be kind to them. Part of that is they're constantly moving and the agendas are moving, and they're moving very quickly.
Some of the work we do is a bit of a retrospective: this is what you've committed to in the accords, here is where we are today, and we're trying to project. There's a bit of a disconnect.
If I can use one example where the jurisdictions did come together a number of years ago, it was around medical school enrolments. They agreed. They made a decision. In retrospect, we could argue it might have been the wrong decision.
Governments can act and do act when they feel it is in their interest to do so, collectively. So the accords are an example of that. We think, when they look at wait times and other issues, when it's viewed as critical to the public interest, the national public interest, they come together.
What we need, and are trying to implement through our process here and the work others are doing, is to say human resources planning in the health care field is another call to develop and define as a national interest. We need that, or else in five years' time or ten years' time your committee will be asking the same questions.
We have an aging population, and we know the parameters of care that are going to be required. So if we set some objectives and then design the services around that, we can then also design the human resource requirements around that.
The health ministers of Canada are not there today. I think what this committee can do is point them in that direction.