Thank you.
In response to the comments, the idea here, the concern we have, is that we have a study that.... I agree that it could be very expanding and have a lot of information, and that there are a lot of people we could have witness-wise, not only for testimonials from patients, but also from those who are involved, which is the main thing. The problem we have is that if it's left open, that allows for it to take up a significant amount of time. Taking up that significant amount of time then results in the fact that we don't get a report out, that we don't get a response and that we end up looking at this....
Let's take, for example, what happened in the last government on pharmacare. They took two years to study pharmacare. They came up with a report after two years. By the time it came out, we had an election call, so nothing actually came out of that. The damage we have here is that if we do that here, without putting a time frame on it.... Maybe we can tighten the scope of what we're going to look at in that area and then bring back another issue later, but if we leave it wide open and there's suddenly an election, we run the risk of (a), not getting the report done or (b), getting it done but it never gets tabled.