Yes.
I know that Brian just suggested that maybe we leave the timing to you, Chair, but I have some reservations on the overall timing when you tell me that we have 21 meetings between now and the end of June. If I'm working through all that is on the agenda to the extent that we want it to remain on the agenda, we have two more meetings for aerospace, plus, I would say, a minimum of two meetings to review and finalize the report. If we're really optimistic and thinking it can only take two, then you have four for aerospace.
Sébastien, quite rightly, is going to want to get the affordability study done. Again, that's going to be a minimum of two meetings. We're up to six. You have four meetings now that we're planning for this acquisition piece, despite three other reviews that are going to happen. If we're going to table a report, that's another two meetings, let's say. That's six in total, so we're up to 12.
Then you have the permit economy for, let's say, plus two, so we're up to 18. Then you have green recovery at four plus two. We're up to 24.
We routinely at this committee seem to want to add to our work in a completely ad hoc way. What do we actually want to accomplish?
I have concerns about this acquisition, Pierre. I think we should care about consumer protection and price. I disagree with the Premier of Alberta on this front. I also think this committee is better placed to address actual Competition Act reform and to push the government on that front. Yes, we can raise our voice, but our voice won't be heard in the same way when three other reviews are going to be taking place.
My question really is this: What do we want to accomplish here? Are we going to bring in a few witnesses and wag our fingers at them? Fine. I enjoy that, at times, but what do we actually want to accomplish? When I look at the agenda, it's overloaded. It doesn't look like we're actually seized with.... We're not focused. We're not going to drive a point home here in any serious way.