Do I have anybody else on the list to throw into this discussion?
I don't think Ms. Dzerowicz's motion compromises the idea...if we decide to table the pre-budget report in December. I don't even know if it's possible for the Library to do that. That's another angle.
I think the other problem we have is that normally this committee...because we'd be on the road and we could meet for five days, we could meet for sometimes six and seven hours. We are limited to two meetings of two hours per week until the place adjourns on December 11, I think. That's the other problem we're up against. I've already asked the Library of Parliament, and they are working on a summary of those briefs, so that's already in progress.
I think the other thing we may need to consider is there was...although it was under a different topic—it was under the COVID-19 submissions when we did that review—we had about 300 witnesses; it was close to 270 I think. There were some good recommendations in those submissions as well, and the Library of Parliament has done a comprehensive summary of them. I guess we'll probably also need a motion to go forward on that.
We might want to think of that, because those could be considered, for us as members at least, as part of the recommendations to be considered in the final package. We don't have that in the motion. However, I think those witnesses came forward in good faith. Although it was not on pre-budget, it was on COVID-19, it very much relates to the issue of where we are. I think we probably need to add that in a motion, that the evidence for whatever the name of the subject title we were doing—COVID-19—should also be brought forward from the last Parliament and considered as part of the pre-budget consultations.
That's where we're at now.
Could we add an amendment to that effect so we deal with that as well?