I must admit that since we did those three reports.... That's the 2002 report, the follow-up in December 2002, and the other follow-up in December 2008. And I'll do another one, because this is not going to go away, and it's very important.
If I can share my own first impression, I must admit that there is a lot of writing but not enough acting. We write a lot of things. We produce a lot of CanForGen, “We will do that. We will produce a policy to address this.” But what happens on the ground, and the reality of things, is that it's still not there.
There are issues where, I'm sorry, a bureaucratic answer, to me, is.... You know, there are issues that could be looked at as having more priority.
Families, more and more, need to be looked at. Families are not getting the care and services that we all say they will get. They're not part of the armed forces, but they are very much linked to everything that the spouses are going through.
The database—I'm going back to that—is important. We're looking at what comes ahead, but it seems to me that we don't move enough on that. In 2002, eight years ago, we were asking for work on the database to identify the scope of the problem.
Again, with all those budget cuts, we need to bring in enough money and resources to increase the number of caregivers, because they will need more caregivers in the near future. The caregivers are very important. We all talk about what's happening now, but if you don't have the professional health caregivers, it's not going to go away. It might be worse, because people won't come forward and you'll lose them too.
So the database is very important. Then we need to take care of the caregivers by taking away their administrative function and putting the emphasis on the clinical duties that they were hired to do. Then, obviously, there is family. We cannot dissociate any of those things from the family anymore. They're really part of the issue and the challenge.