Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Not to belabour the point, and I appreciate what Mr. Powlowski brought up, but I do want to say that this in the context of understanding amendment NDP-1 in looking at the inquiry. Being as this is the first clause of the beginning of the bill that we're looking at, addressing just that fact, I haven't been convinced, as Mr. Powlowski has been, in terms of what we went through during the pandemic. Many people around the table—Ms. Sidhu, Mr. Powlowski, Mr. Thériault, Mr. Davies, me—were told consistently, over and over again, “This is what we're doing now, but don't worry. There will be a plan. There will be an inquiry.”
Again, knowing that we're going to move on to Don's amendment soon and vote on it, I want to raise now, before we get too far into the bill, at the purpose level, that having a private member's bill address it, I don't think, was the intent of the people around the table.
I forgot about Mr. Fisher. I'm sorry. He was there too, of course.
It wasn't the intent that we heard, particularly in opposition, that this was how things were going to be addressed. I think there was a lot of good faith at the time that there was going to be something more substantial. What I really worry about is that the government won't bring something forward knowing that they now have this to point to. We already saw that with the previous minister pointing to this during some of his testimony and saying that there's no need to talk about the pandemic because this is coming forward.
Again, I won't belabour the point. I just wanted to state at the outset that this alone, a private member's bill, is.... I know that Nate is probably listening in on the webcast. He's a good friend. This isn't personal. Ultimately, at the end of the day, this isn't what I think we, not only as the opposition but also the general public, were sold in good faith.