Well, I'll be brief.
Colleagues, I just want to say that I'm surprised. I've been a member of the House for many years. Although I'm new on this committee, I've served on other committees. I served a long time on the health committee. Whenever something came up on the health file that was germane to our area, we considered ourselves to be the best informed members in the House on a health matter. When it was the Romanow report, we wanted to hear from Commissioner Romanow; we had extensive hearings with the commissioner. When the Kirby report came in, we wanted to hear from Senator Kirby and from officials who sat with him and prepared that report. When we were talking about the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the chair was appointed, Dr. Alan Bernstein, we wanted to hear from the chair, because we were considered, and considered ourselves to be, more or less, the authoritative members when health issues came before the House. Whether it was the Quarantine Act or something else, we wanted to debate those issues.
Frankly, I think it is the responsibility of the committee to examine work in the area of expertise the committee is supposed to be holding the government to account on. I am quite frankly astounded that members on the opposite side would not want to avail themselves of this opportunity. It is the fundamental role of members to inform themselves about these issues and to challenge issues you don't agree with.
If members turn down what I see as a fundamental responsibility of committee members, I think it's going to reflect very poorly not only on the committee but certainly on the members who make such a decision.