Can I add a quick point to this issue of accompaniment?
There's also a major problem with the kinds of rehabilitation services across Canada. Unlike Australia, we don't have a federal rehabilitation system that has a quality control mechanism. It's all provincial. As somebody who's worked and returned to work in rehabilitation for years--for all my clinical practice I've worked in the U.K., Australia, and here--I can tell you that there is a huge variability.
We've had a lot of companies that have come up with glossy brochures and glossy information that says they are the best vocational rehabilitation companies since sliced bread. It's very dangerous. They use statistics, but they don't really know what correlations and standard deviations mean, and the statistics are used to try to give the impression that this is the best program. Lawyers love that kind of stuff, so they take it and they figure it must be good. That's not true, because as Patrick's evidence will definitely demonstrate, it's complex. It's a complex area. It is not as simple as saying, “Okay, you have a fractured leg; we'll get that better, and I'm sure we can accommodate you in the workplace.” It's much more complex.
The other problem is resources across Canada. We don't have continuity, we don't have consistency, and we have huge differences among provinces in terms of what rehabilitation is. As an academic rehabilitation professor--retired, admittedly--I've been very involved with what's happening across Canada. There's been a huge shift in coming to terms with rehabilitation that is actually rehabilitation research. We haven't had enough of that. Things have improved, as Dr. Loisel has already mentioned, and that's a great improvement, but it is a huge issue when we come to rehabilitation. It's that variability right across the board. Am I right?