Mr. Chair, Mr. Lake is not the only one entitled to talk for a long time when it suits him. It's now my turn to speak.
My colleague did not properly understand what I said. I'm not at all opposed to have this motion come up third on the list of priorities. I said that it would probably not be studied until the fall. I would like it to be studied this fall, as early as possible. The health of women depends on it. They are waiting for us to address this very specific and important issue of concern to them.
When it was a matter of the Conservative or the Liberal motion earlier, did the question of whether it would be studied first, second or third come up? No. It was just assumed that the Liberal and Conservative motions would be adopted, and it seemed to me that it was my turn to introduce one, because no one else had anything to propose at that time.
Given that the number of meetings had been accepted and I had not put an amendment about it, I did not necessarily expect the study to be carried out between now and June. Given the specific nature of the motion, it would not be a problem for this study to be the third on the priority list and considered in the fall. If that presents a problem, I'd like to be convinced of it. Personally, I don't see a problem.
In any event, I'm not sure that we're going to complete the second study by the month of June. There are always imponderables. For example, we sometimes have to devote meetings to the appearance of a minister who comes to speak to us about urgent problems. Sometimes urgent meetings are called in compliance with Standing Order 106(4).
I'm not saying that the study I'm proposing ought not to be considered third. I repeat that its narrow focus and the fact that it would be a short study means that it could be handled without difficulty in a timely manner.