I have one specific comment and a general one.
Specifically, the other thing we have to bear in mind is that the legislation that's tabled today is going to go to a committee. The exact same issues that we could be discussing here can be discussed at that committee. For instance, I suspect that the legislation will not contain anything on increasing access to those with mental illness, but that can be thoroughly canvassed at the other committee.
We will have two parliamentary committees seized with the same issue. I just throw that out for consideration.
On a general subject, I'm a little confused, Mr. Chair, about the procedure you want to adopt.
Typically, motions are moved at this committee to propose certain studies. If they pass, they are then referred to the subcommittee, which then determines things like how many meetings to hold, when they will be scheduled, etc. If there are more motions passed—if we have three, four or five studies passed at the main table—the subcommittee will come up with a plan to put those in order, and bring that back to the full committee, recommend it, and then the committee as a whole will determine if they accept that. That's a way to have the detailed discussions, which bogged us down last time, figured out at the subcommittee level.
It has never been my experience that brand new issues, or issues that have not been passed at the committee, can be proposed at the subcommittee level.
I guess we could do that, but I want to be clear that it's not the way it has ever worked in the past. It could be the way we want to work in the future, but I want clarity on that, if I could.