Mr. Chair, this has already been said, and I repeat it.
The sentence saying that the study should be carried out in parallel with the committee's study on COVID-19 was added to the motion because we had to consider two emergencies, which is fairly rare. That is why it was included. Otherwise, it would not have been.
Everyone knows this very well. Even the government representatives here, and Mr. Fisher, who attended a forum on the Trikafta drug, are well aware of this.
January 1 has been brought up several times. I even insisted on this twice, following comments made by Mr. Davies, who was trying to explain it. Absolutely nothing he is doing today surprises me.
However, if it's not down to the emergency issue related to January 1 and the implementation of guidelines, give me another reason why it is being added to a motion that this study must be carried out in parallel with the COVID-19 study.
Earlier, Mr. Davies was talking about one meeting plus three—so one at the end, just before we resume after the holidays again. If you want, we can always hold eight meetings after January 1. What will that lead to? People will realize that nothing will change by January 1. The government's current position is to accept the date of January 1, see what will happen and adjust next year.
Mr. Chair, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is waiting for access to a drug that will save their life. That is what we are talking about today. Saying that we can take the time we need to carry out this study seems inappropriate and insulting for patients that have a great deal of hope for that drug. The clerk could surely attest to this. I'm convinced that people are eager to testify and that they are only waiting for the opportunity. What Mr. Davies' motion is saying to them is that they will be entitled to one meeting. We will have only one meeting, which means a maximum of eight witnesses, before the holidays. Are you really serious?
I am speaking to the Liberal government's representatives around this table. Are you really serious? Many innovative medicines are coming on the market. Are you seriously ready to look rare disease and cancer patients lacking access to two of the six drugs in the eye and to tell them there is no emergency?
Mr. Chair, I will stand by my position and will not accept that, as I'm the one proposing the motion. We can always say that January 1 is not a set date. We don't need to do that because it corresponds to the implementation of the guidelines. However, a 30-day time frame, for instance, was provided in the motion.
I would like us to get back to common sense and intellectual integrity, and to recognize the true intent of this motion. That must be recognized.
If I have understood correctly, people don't even want to discuss my subamendment. That speaks volumes. People watching us with great hope in terms of the work we could do before Christmas on the PMPRB will be able to pass judgment on everyone here.
I will be able to look in the mirror because I am not distorting the motions that have been passed. If we were to look at the blues to consider the entire argument, we would see that what I am presenting has been voted on. I have presented the same thing I am talking to you about today.