I tend to think that it is a serious issue, and I think the seriousness of it is dealt with best within the study of the charter. It seems to me that there is an implication in the discussion that we'll do a less than fulsome study of suicide if we move it into the charter. I don't think that's what is proposed here at all. I don't think because we take it outside the study of the charter we'll do more of a job than if we studied it inside the charter. It's not bigger or smaller in any regard, in my mind, whether we study it inside or outside the charter.
The reason I would like to study it inside the charter study is because it really addresses the core we can address if we study it fulsomely within the charter. As Mr. Lobb has said, within the wellness model, it has to do with mental health. Suicide has to do with mental health, and we will be looking at it when we study the charter. We will be looking at the mental health services provided by Veterans Affairs. When we get into that category of study, I believe that this is where this fits.
It doesn't mean that we have to spend less time or call fewer witnesses. Unless I'm mistaken, the parliamentary secretary isn't proposing something like a gloss-over by studying it. In my mind, that's not intended. I think we actually can do a better job by studying it within the context of the charter, realizing that we're going to put emphasis on it when we come to it. We will take a very thorough look at the core reasons behind suicide and why it occurs--which really amounts to a mental health issue--and how we provide services through Veterans Affairs for mental health.
The implication I'm sensing from the comments is that one is going to be bigger, and the other is going to be smaller. I see them as equal. I think we can do just as good a job—in fact, a better job—within the study of the charter while putting an emphasis on it. It is important, and it is serious.