Thank you.
With the amendments and subamendments it was starting to remind me of the old adage that an elephant was designed by a committee.
We ought to get right back to the simplicity of this. I like the motion as it's drafted originally. Calling the minister unnecessarily politicizes an issue and probably won't add any more substantive information than we'll get from the health officials.
I do think that we have a practical issue, which is getting the witnesses. We would have to have the witnesses we propose in by the end of tomorrow, I would say, as a matter of function in order to give the clerk next week to get the witnesses, because it's the Tuesday when we come back. That's more a question of administration.
I would support the motion as drafted by Ms. Goodridge for the 15th as written. Also if this is an urgent matter, then delaying it seems counterintuitive to the urgency.
It also gives a chance even to discuss among ourselves what witnesses we may want to have. It's my understanding that the shortage of children's pain medication is a global matter. I'm not sure I can say it is every country, but almost every country is experiencing this. Also, I want to talk to industry a little bit. I happened to have a meeting this morning with a Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturer, in fact, the largest domestic manufacturer of pharmaceuticals in the country. He had some interesting information about this as well. It would be nice to have a broad array of witnesses in that second hour so that we can get a fulsome picture to find out what the potential solutions for this are.
My interest in this matter is understanding what the problem is, but more important, seeing what solutions may exist. My interest is not in politically attacking the government on this, but rather working practically to see what we can do to help.