Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That sounds like a fine plan to me if you want, but just before we decide that as a committee, I'd like to follow up on Mr. Webber's comment and for new committee members.
These were all reports that followed studies from the last Parliament where the motion was passed to do the study. We wrote the report, came to conclusions and made recommendations. We then submitted it to the government for its response. It was a key part of each one of the motions that was made.
With regard to the studies, one is a diabetes strategy, which I believe was a Liberal motion moved by Ms. Sidhu. The second one is on sports-related concussions. I think that was another Liberal one, moved by Mr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette. The third is on the impacts of methamphetamine abuse in Canada, and I believe it was a joint Conservative-Liberal motion. The fourth, a study to get Canada's youth moving, was undertaken as a result of a Liberal backbencher's success in getting his motion passed in Parliament and referred to committee. The fifth one is a study on the LGBTQIA2 community, which I think, Mr. Chair, was your motion. The other one is about violence facing health care workers in Canada, which was my motion. The last one is a letter that followed a study because it came at the very end of our committee business in June. It was on the forced sterilization of women.
The reason I raise this is that I think there was widespread support by all of us around the table for all of those studies. I'm just wondering whether it's really necessary for everybody in this room to reread the reports simply in order to send the reports and then ask the government to give its response to what I think were really excellent recommendations by all parties, recommendations that represent a lot of hard work by everybody. I just don't know why we would hold that process up and whether it's really that important for everybody to reread all those reports. However, I'm happy to go with what the majority wants.