As I said earlier, I think that we're all very concerned and that we want answers, but that we want to make sure that we do things properly.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, Mr. Davies. However, sometimes certain motions seem to be introduced quickly in response to presentations, as is the case today.
Until now, the Standing Committee on Health has always been very collegial. It has always worked for the best interests of Canadians and in a non-partisan manner.
In my first comment, I said that we would be able to study and improve the motion later. We mustn't make decisions on the spur of the moment. We can't say that we want to study this issue and obtain information immediately without even having a game plan.
We could go all over the place to try to obtain all kinds of information. In the end, we must avoid having the analysts base their report on something improvised. I'm calling into question this aspect. I'm not against the motion. We may adopt exactly the same motion later, once we've established a framework.
I want the committee to conduct a proper study of the issue. The study would be much more extensive than if we were simply to hear the presentations of certain people, regardless of whether the presentations are relevant.
I also think that we're wasting time. We have four witnesses before us who likely have answers. The issue isn't whether the answers are good. They could provide an overview of the current situation and tell us where the Department of Health stands on the matter.
We can continue to debate the motion or we can introduce a friendly amendment. Ultimately, I find that we don't have a plan. Our committee is reacting on the spur of the moment to a very serious situation. Three additional witnesses won't change the committee's current recommendation. Our committee is much more serious than this.
I want us to establish and approve a plan, as we've done for our other well-documented studies. We should have a list of witnesses from across the country, since all regions will be affected. Our analysts must propose a game plan that will enable us to submit a report to the minister, if necessary.
If my colleague so desires, we can always listen to two or three more witnesses. However, I would like to do more than this.