Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Fisher. The information we're looking for will be provided precisely by the Public Health Agency. I don't think we're helping ourselves, and I don't think our credibility is going to be improved, by taking a scattergun approach and shooting at everybody who might have information. Let's decide on what it is we're trying to understand.
This motion, as I understand it, is dealing with two things, and two things only: the wearing of masks and the national emergency stockpile. So why are we turning over rocks, so to speak, everywhere else on Parliament Hill? I think we should be focused on the question, and the question is, again, about “emerging evidence that altered the government's advice on the wearing of masks referenced by Dr. Theresa Tam”, and the national emergency strategic stockpile from 2015 to 2020, including supply inventory.
Why don't we focus on those things and make sure that the information we're seeking specifically comes to us and addresses that from the people who are most knowledgeable about all that?
I think there's enough on the hands of the government and the people who are delivering the health care that we need now. This situation isn't over yet. I think we should focus on the issue and the question, and that's what we should be doing. To me, the information we're seeking can be achieved without involving all the other groups of government.
As I say, a scattergun approach is not helpful. It confuses the issue. It undermines people's confidence, because we're looking for something but we don't know what we're looking for. Why don't we focus on the areas where the information is available? Why don't we focus on the people who are providing that information?
I will be supporting the amendment.