The program has been in place for 13 years. It used to be supervised by professionals more than it is today. In the program's first six years, we had a multidisciplinary team—made up of mental health nurses, social workers, psychologists and even a psychiatrist—on my advisory committee.
Unfortunately, over the past few years, there has been an erosion in that multidisciplinary approach, and I now see a tendency to bureaucratize that program. I'll give you an example.
This peer support program is basically provided by people who have suffered from mental health issues themselves. By the way, as a civilian, I now institute that approach in large companies to help employees with mental health issues. That's seen as a service that will contribute to companies' ability to deal with their employees' mental health problems.
Naturally, employees really need to be taken care of in a peer support program. That applies to any company. However, when you manage a peer support program, you certainly have to monitor the situation and really take care of your employees.
Over the past two years, I have noticed a bureaucratization of this approach and a laissez-faire attitude toward a few of the self care policies that were important to me. Those policies ensured that people would have quick access to a psychologist when they are going through the wringer because their case is very difficult to handle. So that monitoring has declined over the years. I am always worried when I hear that a program refers peer support volunteers to traditional programs for assisting federal government employees.
I think the program should do more.