I appreciate all of the comments and the discussion. I think this is really healthy for us to frame this kind of a study, which is clearly important to everybody here.
I think my colleague Mr. Vaughan makes really good points about targeting this study on a specific gap. However, I also appreciate the other comments to have some flexibility.
I wonder if reviewing the stakeholder list and the way the study is structured might be helpful. I think that's what we're talking about here—what witnesses can be called under what themes and topics. I appreciate the work done by the analyst who is here with us. I can see the general structure that was proposed originally, and I know we're not tied to that. We're basically talking about reframing this, which I think is good and I'm fully in support of it.
It looks to me as if there may be additional groups that we could consider having on the list. Individuals with lived experience have always been extremely important in the national housing work, and being guided by those individuals and their lived experience is certainly helpful.
The other one I would suggest could be on the list would be other service providers who have a view on housing insecurity in indigenous communities. I think from a systems perspective, they'll actually lend a slightly different perspective from housing providers or individuals with lived experience. I think they're part of the system that could be brought together around a comprehensive solution.
What I'm saying is that, if we review the bulleted list in the original document.... I think we were saying first nations housing on reserve might be excluded from the list, or maybe included in certain cases where we deem appropriate.
Mr. Albas, I'm sorry if I misspoke, but I was trying to be appeasing to your comments as well, but maybe I didn't put that well.
Anyway, I think if we revise that list, it might be helpful to review the overall structure of the study and how we pace out and theme the different meetings that we're going to have.