Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As for the number of questions around the table about the legality of the statement, this committee took the initiative and had counsel here the last time. We heard clear testimony about the strength of the legislation, regulatory aspects, and civil conflicts as well. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to send a letter and ask the minister about the legal standing of it. At some point in time, I think we should do the work we began and make a recommendation regarding the bill of rights. We had a fulsome conversation. In fact it was, I thought, one of the best committee meetings we had with the two counsel here, discussing some of the avenues of how we could make a recommendation to the minister regarding that.
The other thing, too, is that I'm a little puzzled at some people's concern that subsequent recommendations would not be as powerful as pre-emptive recommendations on the path of a department or legislation by a minister, or whatever. Frankly, everything we do here is subsequent in some way, shape or form; it's either dealing with the way things have been for years or, in this case, it will be the way things have been for weeks or months. So the key thing is going to be prioritizing, if we want to go back to the bill of rights and continue with the health review and submit it.
As for Mr. Stoffer's concerns about something coming out beforehand, as I said, I think subsequent recommendations are just as powerful as pre-emptive ones, in the sense that I think the department will take it seriously. I believe the work we do here is serious, and it's always been taken that way.