I'm not quite sure how to say this. I'm very comfortable meeting with more witnesses. I think Mr. St. Denis' suggestion that it be done in a more private setting would probably be more beneficial to the sufferers.
I also agree with what Mr. Sweet has said. I believe that if you are able to have a number of people in a room who have actually survived this and have made it through and are back on their feet, that might also encourage those who are still going through the process and wondering if there is light at the end of the tunnel. I think that would be a very positive way to go.
But this is my concern with the direction we're going as a committee. I know that PTSD is extremely important, and it is something that's near and dear to my heart. But we made a promise to veterans that we were going to do the health care review, and before that health care review can touch on things such as the VIP program and expand, we actually have to get down to the business of doing the whole health care review.
I believe we have spent--correct me if I'm wrong, clerk--six meetings on PTSD. And although that's a very important aspect of health care, it's not what is affecting today's traditional veterans. And those are the people who are involved in the VIP program. If we're going to move forward and do something for the VIP program, and if this committee wants to be part of that, we need to move forward. If we don't want to get involved in the VIP program, and the committee would prefer to pursue the post traumatic stress disorder issue, then I think we need to say that as a committee so the government can move forward on the VIP program without input from the committee, if that's the choice of the committee.
So I'm looking for some direction as to which way you want to go. If you want to go down the PTSD path, that's fine with me. We'll just make a decision here one way or the other about what we're going to accomplish as a committee.