Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for helping us out today.
The comments that Mr. Shaw made in the most recent conversation with Mr. Hawn contained a very important point, that being the lack of a system or a regime to share best practices. That's unfortunate, because delays in adopting best practices potentially hurt the people who.... They are lost opportunities.
In the last meeting we had a witness from the Gerontological Advisory Council, and there was a researcher with the department. They talked about some pilot projects that involved tracking a group of veterans and in some cases their spouses. I think it included B.C. These people were on track to get older and go to a nursing home without any home care, whether it was just shovelling a driveway or helping with the grass or cleaning a house. We don't automatically associate these things with health, but I think most of us certainly would agree that they are health-related. If you're not strong, you can't cut the grass. If you can't cut the grass, it's less possible for you to stay at home. It can be a vicious cycle. They also tracked a cohort of veterans, in some cases with spouses, who did have home care. They did an analysis. This is a crass measure of success, but they used monetary cost. What was the cost to the country of one group versus the other, on average? They found that on average, those who got home care cost the system less.
Now, add to that the quality of life, of being able to stay in your home longer--even until your final hours, if possible--versus having to live in a home. Those are difficult to measure, but they are certainly benefits.
From either of our two delegations here, or both, is it your view that the study represents, anecdotally, the truth? It comes back to best practices, because we should be adopting this generally--not only for veterans but generally. Does it make sense to help people to stay at home longer, not only for quality of life but for cost?