You raise an interesting point, Mr. Sweet. I ask the committee to consider it.
We, of course, can have a motion or letter. Actually, I see there are four options here. One is that we could have the wording of a motion as laid out, say, for example, by Mr. St. Denis. We could have a letter come from the chair. We could have witnesses appear before us with regard to the legal implications of all of these things. The other option is Mr. Sweet's intriguing idea, where he talks about pre-emptive recommendations. The committee can certainly recommend what they wish to see with regard to the timelines or questions that are arising from this.
Anyhow, I see there are four potential options. Right now, though, the only thing we have before us, or will have before us, is the draft of Mr. St. Denis' motion.
Now, I don't have anybody else on the speaking list for this. Is there anybody else who wishes to have their name added to it?
Okay, what I think will probably suffice, then, is that I'll probably wait for the wording of the motion to be dealt with at the next committee meeting by Mr. St. Denis.
Oh, we have a motion by Mr. Stoffer, but he's not here. He's gone to a press conference. Okay, fair enough.
We can have a bit of a break and I'll leave this with you. I know Mr. Stoffer's motion will be up, and hopefully he'll have a chance to return and speak to that.
The other thing is what we will do in subsequent meetings. Obviously in a subsequent meeting we'll be dealing with the motion, I would assume, from Mr. St. Denis, and then I'm thinking, based on what I hear around here—and after dealing with Mr. Stoffer's motion—we'll probably carry forward with our health care review. And then maybe we'll await the response, if we get one, to Mr. St. Denis' motion, or what have you, and consider what we do, if anything further, on the veterans bill of rights.
So let's take a break then.