Yes, in our opinion, the statistics could have been presented in a balanced way to allow the reader of the report to understand the extent or the scope of the issue. For example, on the survey results in the report, our total regular member and civilian member population is 22,237; of that, 6,769 active members responded to the survey. The survey was sent in hard copy to our members currently on ODS, meaning those off-duty sick for 30 days or longer. Our ODS member population was 828, and of those, 261 members responded to the survey.
When you go into the exhibit that's in the report and the manner in which it's represented, it focused on the very negative aspects of that, as opposed to the balance of, say, the 73% of active members and 46% of ODS members who responded that they had easy access; the 75% of active members and 49% of ODS members—and when you look at the 49% of ODS members, it would be 100-and-some members responding—who said they had timely access; and the 77% active and 53% of ODS respondents who were aware of the mental health strategy; and the 74% of active respondents and 64% of ODS respondents who knew how to access mental health services.