Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I'd like to thank the witnesses.
It's a simple principle, but you helped shed light on the complexities.
First, I have a request for you, Dr. Brassard. Mr. Hanley's first question is very important. The advantage of Ms. Therrien's proposal is that it brings together all the areas where we need to exercise caution. You said it was hard for you to comment on the proposal on the spot, and I completely understand. If possible, I would like the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Quebec to send us its views on the proposal in writing.
You talked a lot about consent. You mentioned the fact that people have regrets. As a doctor, I know that regret and consent are two different things. We all know that a patient can give informed consent and still have regrets later.
You also talked about the patient as a partner. That's such an important concept. I'm an old doctor. I had bosses who were paternalistic. Then, we moved to a more corporatist approach. Dr. Gaudreault sees where I'm going with this. In other words, we did what the corporation or college asked us to do. What was right, what was allowed by the college was what we had to do. After that, a patient-centred approach emerged, but even then, we decided what was best for the patient together. Now, you spoke about the patient as a partner. That is fundamental. That is what we need to keep in mind.
Dr. Gaudreault, I commend you. You talked about the study in Abitibi. You talked about the working group that the college established. You even said that you led the group, which is surprising for someone who's the president of a physicians' college.
Nevertheless, you realize that this committee meeting is happening today because the colleges didn't do their job. Where were the colleges all those years? I'm talking about the Quebec college and those of the other provinces. Why are we here today? Did the colleges offer up any sort of mea culpa, and if so, to who?