—but, going a little further, they would need instruction as to what this committee considers should be in or shouldn't be in.
I for one had specifically understood that we would be relying on the evidence that was before the other committee and would use that evidence with respect to the examination and cross-examination of other witnesses—the Ipsos Reid comments and reports, the comments of the health minister from Saskatchewan or Alberta—with respect to the integration back and forth.
Having done that, it would be difficult for the analysts to go back and excise everything that has reference to the previous committee, because it's not that simple. There has been use of it in this committee, and we would have to go through this report and say what should be in and what should be out. Obviously, anything I examined on or cross-examined on with the witnesses is totally pertinent and relevant and is evidence and should not be excised. How the analysts deal with that, I don't know.
I'm saying that it's not a simple matter. I'm in agreement that we could delay Mr. Lessard's motion, because that seems reasonable, and that we go back to the report and have a good, wholesome debate about what should be in and what should not be in. Then the analysts would have a basis upon which to bring a final draft before us, I would say.