Thank you very much, Chair.
This is a very important topic. It impacts a lot of women in this country. The mark of this committee has been to do thoughtful work and thoughtful analysis.
I'm sure that we all agree on the recommendation we will be making through the work this committee has been doing. What saddens me is that at this moment, with the original motion and the amended motion, which I support, we're basically writing the report. We're really missing the opportunity to capture the pretty much unanimous analysis that we received from some incredible witnesses. The value of capturing and documenting the witnesses' testimony is being missed by using the process we're using. We're not getting a more substantive document in front of the task force in their 60-day review period, which has been extended, as the minister has asked them to do, by basically having a five- or six-line set of recommendations.
That's my concern. I think that's what Mr. Hanley was referring to as well—shortchanging the process. I don't believe in being loud for the sake of it when being loud is not substantiated by a rational thought process. Being loud is far more effective when you can justify why you're being loud, and I think we're missing the opportunity to write a report that analysts would have captured by hearing the testimony.
In any case, I support the amendments that have been put forward so we can help ensure we are moving forward with protecting the lives of women, especially, as we heard, those who are racialized. I come from that background. I've talked about the experience I went through with my mother, who's an educated woman—all of us are—and the kind of anxiety that we faced as we worked through that process.
We should do this in a way that is befitting of this parliamentary committee.