My understanding was that, at this committee meeting, we could decide on the next study motion. I do understand Mr. Turnbull, who put forward his motion with good arguments. I was prepared to listen to him, but a procedural matter was raised, and that's okay.
Coming into this meeting, I was under the impression that we had already done the work on this matter. That was not just an impression, as I did refer back to our committee discussions. On February 2, we discussed here what's to come. There was an entire debate on whether we would prioritize the employment insurance reform or Ms. Falk's motion on the issue of seniors, which was amended with additions.
If you look at our committee discussions with Mr. Vaughan, among others, Ms. Falk herself was saying she was in favour of the idea of dedicating the next five meetings to the study on employment insurance, if that meant that we would move on to the study on seniors shortly thereafter. Mr. Chair, that is what you closed the meeting on.
So in the post–pandemic context, as that is where we are, I was pretty favourable to our next meeting focusing on seniors, as we had discussed and as I had understood.
Of course, that does not take anything away from the merits of what Mr. Turnbull put forward. Although his intervention may have seemed a bit long, the issues he raised were well-founded. However, given the conclusions the committee reached at that time on the study on seniors—which is fairly broad and related to what happened, as well as to government policies—I would keep our next study on the topic of seniors.