Thank you very much, Chairperson.
First of all, to the witnesses and to Mr. Walton on video conference, welcome to the committee today. I think you're all aware that the previous committee in the former Parliament did a lot of work on this, so we're catching up. Having you here today and hearing more testimony is actually very helpful to the study we're doing.
I think we've gone from the broad issues that Dr. Bray has just put forward to some very specific issues.
I wanted to say as a general comment, first of all, that for those of you who have talked about the need for greater supports for caregivers for people with MS and other neurological diseases, I do think that's really important. It keeps coming up, just so you know. Whatever issue we look at in terms of chronic diseases and conditions, it keeps coming up. So clearly, there's a lot more work that needs to be done. I hope very much that will be a part of our report: the need for—as I think you put it, Ms. Vaillant—refundable tax credits.
I know the situation is really tough for people who have lost their employment because of their medical situation, so it's a huge issue, which the federal government can directly assist with. That's not going to be my question, but I wanted you to know that we've heard everything you're saying.
The questions I have focus more on where we're at with the CCSVI. We've all been visited by constituents, by MS sufferers. I have, on many occasions, and I have a couple of things on that. It's fascinating to me to see how the system responded when information about this treatment first came out, whether it was the MS Society, the government itself, or the medical community overall. We do know that the clinical trials are going to begin, so I have a couple of questions.
First of all, are you satisfied that the trials are happening quickly enough? There seem to be so many...I don't want to call them delays, but it's taking so much time. I know that there has been a great impetus to have this move more quickly.
I'm a layperson, but I do have the sense that there has been so much happening in the U.S. MP Kirsty Duncan organized a great session a few months ago at which we had some incredible experts from the U.S. It seemed that there was a lot more happening there in terms of the CCSVI treatment.
So I do have a question about why it took so long in terms of the response here, and, looking back, how you feel about that now. How has the MS Society itself dealt with this issue? Because I know it was quite divisive. There were people who went out and formed their own sorts of networks and so on.
So I do think it's worth exploring this, because to me this was very much a patient-led movement, if you will. It almost became a movement—maybe it is a movement—that compelled us to get on it. I don't think we had ever seen that to such an extent before, at least in my experience, but I haven't been on the health committee very long.
I'd really like both of you to respond to that—and the other witnesses as well—in terms of what's happening in the U.S. and whether Canada is now behind that, and whether you're satisfied with what is contemplated now, both for the trials in Canada and for the monitoring system that's being set up.
I hope that's clear enough for you to answer.