Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for coming.
I have to apologize to the people from the labour group and to the Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities. We've heard from so many of your representatives across the country, but we haven't had many academics come, so that's where I'm going to focus, and maybe my colleague will get back to your groups.
I had to agree with a lot of what you said when I read the task force report for the first time. I had the sense that rather than it being a discussion paper, it felt a little bit like a sales pitch. I'll point to one thing in the report that stuck out to me, and that was around the notion of expenditure. It was focused on how much everything cost, rather than how much revenue was earned in different ways.
They broke down the cost associated with different types of delivery, saying that door-to-door costs $272 per such and such, and they didn't really focus on the different ways that revenue could be generated.
From an academic perspective on these types of discussion papers, what's your sense of the way they should have avoided a one-sided narrative, and maybe what an alternate narrative might have been had they focused on revenue instead of cost?