I'm happy to, and that actually links a bit back to Monsieur Thériault's question, which is trying to set a predetermined timeline by which we will have evidence, and we don't know if we will.
The holes are this. If we are saying to people that we are predicting their mental illness won't improve, we need to have evidence that we can do that honestly, and we don't have that. Whatever there is on track two or track one doesn't address that.
As well, the separation of suicidality from psychiatric euthanasia requests also is something that the evidence does not show, so you can have people saying that they think they can do something and it doesn't mean that they can. We have physicians saying that they think you should take Ivermectin for COVID. It doesn't mean that we should set a regulatory framework to do that; it's ridiculous.
What I am speaking to is the evidence, not what any particular individual is saying.
I will also say, by the way, that in terms of my own former professional association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, of which I am a past president, I find that the input they have provided to this file has actually been shameful.
You were asking about track two. In the consultations leading up to Bill C-7, consultations on mental illness and death, they never once mentioned suicide prevention. They never once mentioned evidence related to suicide risks of mental illness or marginalized populations. That would be like a respirologist association never mentioning smoking as a risk factor for lung health.
You go think what that means. I don't know what it means, so—