Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Contrary to what Mr. Davies was saying, we don't need to provide a witness list again for either the PMPRB study or the COVID-19 study. The deadline was Wednesday at 6 p.m. All these lists have already been submitted with our priorities, as requested in Mr. Davies' motion, last time, on the organization of the proceedings.
However, the issue here is that Mr. Davies' motion—which is, once again, a motion about the organization—changes the purpose of the motion that we adopted on the PMPRB study. I'll read it again, because I think that some people don't remember it.
The motion moves the following:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) Guidelines issued on October 23, 2020; that, as part of this study, the Committee invite experts and pharmaceutical industry representatives, as well as civil society organizations or associations (representing patients), to appear; that the Committee hold a minimum of four (4) meetings; that this study be conducted in parallel with the Committee's study on COVID-19; that additional meetings be added to the Committee's schedule if the Committee deems it necessary; that the Committee issue a request for written briefs and for requests to appear by the end of the week with a submission deadline of November 6, 2020; that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House; and that the government provide a response to these results within 30 days.
I'll go through the points one by one to remind you of the motion's purpose. The 30-day period was related to the date of January 1. Ms. Rempel Garner introduced the idea of a simultaneous study because we didn't want to go beyond January 1.
We can't say that we have time to discuss this because the motion had an urgent nature. That's why we adopted it in this manner.
Why did we set November 6 as the date for the submission of briefs? This deadline was very short. We needed time to debate the motion and make our recommendations before January 1. That was the goal.
However, at one point, issues related to the organization of rooms and logistics made it difficult for us to find times to meet. However, we spent at least three meetings on COVID-19 not discussing the substance of the issue, but trying to agree on the organization of the proceedings. These meetings could have already been used to address the matter.
I'm speaking out, not for the pharmaceutical companies that have a legal department to represent them, but for patients, sick people, individuals with rare diseases and cancer patients who want access to the best drugs available and who are worried right now. I'm fighting for them.
We can say that this matter isn't urgent and that we can move this once the guidelines have been implemented. However, I'll say that this wasn't the purpose of the motion. I moved the motion. We introduced things in the motion. I believe, Mr. Chair—