Thank you.
This is the kind of absurdity the Conservative position is being reduced to, where Dr. Ellis talks repeatedly about the NDP and “the NDP-Liberal coalition” in his remarks, but when I respond to them, he says it's inappropriate for me to mention the NDP, after he mentioned it 22 times in his talk. That lack of good faith at this committee makes one wonder how far we're going to get on this.
By the way, I also want to say this. The Conservatives brought up—I think it was Dr. Kitchen—the very real point that Canada was left in a position where we couldn't produce vaccines. I think it's important for all Canadians to know why that's the case. It's because the Conservatives, under the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, sold the Canada Crown corporation Connaught Labs, which had been producing vaccines and other medications in this country. Had that decision not been made, Canada could very well have been in a position to produce vaccines and wouldn't have had to rely on companies like Medicago or others. Of course, we were placed in that position of vulnerability because of bad, poor policy decisions made by the Conservatives back then. Canadians need to know that, as well.
The situation Canada found itself in, in early 2020, was a bad one. We were unprepared. We had poor personal protective equipment. We were unable to produce vaccines. All of that is shared by consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments that came before this, as documented in repeated Auditor General reports going back decades. Lest the Conservatives get completely sanctimonious, they claim to be the party of accountability and responsibility, but they sure don't take it when there's any placed in their lap.
I would like to end here by saying that we should look at this issue. I appreciate that this motion tacks on an extra hour after regular meetings. I want to second what my Liberal colleagues said and point this out, as well. You know, I've been on committees for a long time. I'll tell you that every party can throw a monkey wrench into the machinery. For every action of dislocation, confusion and delay that can be thrown into this, there's an equal one.
By the way, I will also say that the Conservatives, who have pretensions of being government next time, may want to file away this point for their government, because they may face this, as well. I have found that, at committees, we have to work together to some degree. Every party at this table sat down and agreed—in a subcommittee meeting on the agenda, and then in open committee—on what the agenda of this committee would be. Then, one party, the Conservatives, took it upon themselves—after they had agreed to it—to come forward and continue to disrupt the agenda they themselves agreed to. Now, they can continue doing that, I suppose, but there are countermeasures that can happen. You know what happens: Canadians suffer, along with the very real business.
The Liberals had a study on the health professionals human resources crisis. The Conservatives had their study on children's health. The Bloc had their study on the breast implant registry. We have not even completed the children's study report yet, nor have we completed the very important report on the breast implant registry. I've been waiting patiently. I'm now into my third year on this committee waiting for the first NDP study, on women's health, which for some reason the Conservatives appear not to want to get to. I hope that's not the case.
Speaking to the amendment, what I will say is this. I think this motion is sound. I think it's well founded. I want to thank the Conservatives for moving it. However, I don't think we necessarily need six hours of meetings on this matter, which is the equivalent of three meetings. So far, the women's health study—if we ever get to it—is between six and seven meetings. Are we really saying we need three meetings to discuss this matter, when we already know the basics of it? Yet we're going to spend two meetings on women and cancer. Really? Is that how the Conservatives would allocate the time of this committee?
I'm not sure if I can make a subamendment to this motion, Mr. Chair, but I would amend it to say “That the committee hold up to six hours of meetings” and that way we could gauge. We can get the answers we need. If I'm wrong and it takes six hours of meetings to get the answers we need to the questions, then so be it, but if we get that answer in two meetings or two hours or three hours, then that will save all of us time.
I want to say this. I want to give my Conservative colleagues one bit of credit. I want to ask and hope and give them credit that they are interested in women's health. Mr. Doherty has often been very good at giving credit to everybody. I want to assume that all of us want to get to that.
I was going to say as well that in terms of a Standing Order 106(4) meeting, they are generally reserved for emergencies. I'm not really sure that this topic, important as it is, constitutes an emergency, but because I appreciate the Conservatives' tacking on the extra hour, I think we can look at this issue without disrupting the regular agenda.
I implore all of my colleagues at this table: Let's get back and respect the agenda we've agreed to. We can tack on this subject. I would agree to support this and tack on an hour after each meeting for up to six hours until we're satisfied that we have the answers we need.
The last thing I'll say is that it would be nice if we could get to a vote on this. I think the issue has been well canvassed. We've heard from all sides. We've heard four Conservatives speak. We've had two Liberals speak. I don't want to take away Mr. Thériault's ability to speak, so after we hear from Mr. Thériault, I'm hoping we can vote on this, but I would move a subamendment to the main motion that we just change the words and add “up to” in front of “6 hours”.