I have another question. Given the statement of the parliamentary secretary that this legislation is being done for families of victims, would you not agree that in order to have solid information, you would first conduct a study? You would conduct a study of the attitudes and knowledge those members of families of victims had prior to any application having been filed. Then you would do the same thing after they had gone through the process of an application under the faint hope clause.
I am aware of studies done before and after, in completely different areas, in which the conclusions of individuals who have lived through a particular process can be quite different from what they were prior to having gone through the process, because they gained a lot of information that allowed them to understand context and environment. In some cases, they actually say that this is a great process and it's something they believe should exist. I'm not speaking specifically of the faint hope clause. There are other processes where this happens.
Do you believe that this is the kind of study this government should be conducting prior to claiming that this legislation is for addressing a need expressed by families of victims?