I will start with the first thought in my head.
I quite agree about the fairness of the process. However, we are now in our sixth meeting. Since the vote in the House of Commons, there have been three meetings. If it is so important and urgent to study this motion, as I believe it is, we should have started this study three meetings ago.
It seems to me that, if one matter is proceeding well, it's the PMPRB. People have submitted briefs and have asked to appear despite the very short timeline of November 6. Today, we were supposed to consider their work and their requests to appear. We have half an hour left in which to settle that matter. We have taken the rest of the meeting to try to come to an understanding, once again, on the way in which we are going to study the motion passed in the House.
I feel we have to do that study, but we have set the deadline for the PMPRB as January 1. I would change that. We have six meetings left before Christmas. I would set aside four for the PMPRB, as per the motion we adopted, and I would set aside two for the COVID-19 study, because it will continue after Christmas, which is not the case for the PMPRB study. Let's keep in mind that the timelines are short and, if we really want to submit a report that could influence the decision, however slightly, we have to consider the recent call for the people who have submitted briefs and asked to appear.
It seems to me that, logically, we should reverse the order. We should determine when our four meetings on the PMPRB will take place and not leave that to chance. At the moment, my impression is that we are spending more time discussing the details of each tree than the forest as a whole. Usually, we discuss the details at the subcommittee. We hold public meetings of the subcommittee so that we can discuss the details. I am fine with that, but today is our sixth meeting. As for the study, apart from the opposition day when we were able to speak to the motion and pass it, which was a great step, we have made no progress on the substance of the motion.
I am sorry, but I will not be voting for this proposal because it reverses the priorities that we should have. People are waiting for us to recognize the effort they made on their side, to observe our timeline of November 6.