Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm having a bit of trouble following. Initially, it was six or fewer meetings. Then, four meetings were suggested. Then, it was four or more meetings. It was even suggested that we not indicate the number of meetings at all. Now, if I understand correctly, it's being suggested that we go back to six or fewer meetings.
I completely agree that the subcommittee will decide how many meetings to allocate to each study and at least propose a schedule based on priority. That's important, because it will make it a whole lot easier for us to see what is doable in the time we have once we have the full picture.
If, however, we go with the first option, in other words, six or fewer meetings, it will give the subcommittee some guidance. I do think that it could be helpful. We have to make a choice, but it might be a good idea to set the number of meetings to give us a general idea. We could also not set the number of meetings at all. I think choosing a number would give the subcommittee something to build on in terms of setting the priorities. It could be helpful.
I am nevertheless aware that there will be a desire around the table to deal with a certain number of issues. As such, if we go with four or more meetings, once the subcommittee starts prioritizing, we can come to a consensus and decide to hold eight meetings on a particular topic. At least, if we want to deal with a number of issues, with four or more meetings, we could have a discussion to determine whether that's enough to deal with all the issues we'd like to. Personally, I'm inclined to go with four meetings or more.
