Mr. Chair, the issue is not whether or not we are afraid of an election. It's a matter of making sure that we have the time we need to do our work properly. We've been working on this for a year.
Do we think that the discussions and work that the committee must do in camera on this report will be done quickly?
Do we have an idea of the number of meetings we will have to hold before agreeing? We will also have to take into account the fact that other bills will require studies, which will be added to the committee's agenda as the work in the House of Commons progresses.
That said, if, as we begin our work, we realize that we need to explore the subject further, we can do so, because the committee is the master of its own domain. At least we'll have done the spadework and made some progress.
When I was on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, we produced an interim report. We came to the conclusion that we would run out of time and that we would need to produce an interim report. However, it was because we did the spadework that we were able to realize that an interim report was necessary.
Once we roll up our sleeves and get going, nothing prevents the committee from producing an interim report and holding follow-up consultations with witnesses on certain aspects. However, we have to get cracking if we don't want to repeat what happened with the pandemic study. The committee will have toiled away for nothing because an election is called. Even if an election is called in the fall of 2025, that's only a year away. Between now and then, we'll have the end‑of‑year break and then the summer recess. Unfortunately, we don't have as many meetings left as we might think to be able to produce a report, even by the fall of 2025. This is a very important topic, and we have to take into account the breadth of opinion that may be expressed around the table.
We have to be realistic and serious when we undertake a study. I didn't become a politician to play petty politics. I'm not casting aspersions on anyone. I'm just saying that we have to take things seriously. I do have some expertise in the field of methodology, so I know we have to have the time to do the work, especially on such a thorny subject, when the views around the table are polarized.
If I disagree with my Conservative colleagues, I would never tell them that all they have to do is write a dissenting report. Instead, I would seek to arrive at recommendations that will achieve as much consensus as possible around the table. I still believe in the idea that we all share the same goal on this issue around the table. That's why we have to get cracking.
I think three meetings is enough. It's not because I am indifferent to what indigenous women are going through. Absolutely not. I am talking about this precisely because they are overrepresented statistically in the overdose mortality rates. This is why I want us to treat their situation as part of female mortality trends. That's what this study is about. Why should it be a separate topic of study when we can just insert that aspect of the issue into this study?
What matters to me, in terms of female mortality rates, is understanding why indigenous women are overrepresented.