I would hope that we could carry this conversation over a little bit into the next meeting, so we could have a chance to absorb the testimony and think a little bit about what our next step is. I agree with Mr. Webber that, since we have asked for an opportunity to review the framework, there should be an output. There should be a letter to the minister.
What I'm thinking about right now and what's come out of the testimony is that there clearly is another perspective on Lyme disease that has not really come out through the testimony. I've reviewed some of the literature in preparing for this, and I know, for instance, there's a Dr. Patrick in Vancouver. There is a perspective that the science around Lyme disease is not as consistent with, I think, some of the anecdotal perspectives we're hearing. I'm just wondering if we want to have one day of hearings to hear a few of those other perspectives to round out our perspective on this before we write the minister.
I'll summarize it by saying this. It seems to me, clearly, there's no question there are Canadians who are suffering legitimate issues. They go to their doctors and there seems to be a real lack of understanding of Lyme disease in this country, so they don't get a diagnosis. That causes them to go do their own research, and, in some cases, to consult private clinics and get private diagnoses. They become convinced they have Lyme disease, but there's a large body in the medical establishment in Canada that does not believe that. They don't accept that it's Lyme disease. It's not that they don't believe that they're sick, but they don't believe that it's necessarily Lyme disease. We haven't heard any of that testimony from anybody. I'm in my colleagues' hands on this, but I'm wondering whether, if we're going to be writing to the minister, we want to hear that voice to be complete before we consider....
