Chair, you may recall that at previous meetings the Conservative Party of Canada and all of the members of the opposition have wanted to move forward with this. We have suggested a motion, and discussed and brought forward the actual process to go forward. We asked for a planning session, expeditiously, and that this would be on April 24. We all knew that, and we were all prepared to go with that. We're not prepared to unilaterally dictate a witness list. Just as Mr. Byrne has a list of people he would like—and I respect that—so does each and every other member here.
To strengthen Mr. Saxton's point, this is a committee that has historically worked in a non-partisan mode. This is a committee that historically has been able to bring forward facts, deal with facts, and deal with a good quality and quantity of witnesses that can directly contribute to the successful evolution of this examination and study.
We need to work with that. We need to talk about it back and forth, and deliberate. As an example, if Mr. Allen were to bring forward someone and I had no idea who this individual was and if he were to extol their virtues and demonstrate to this committee why that individual should be here as a witness, I would most certainly be willing to say, “Fine, you've made your point. You have a very good point”, and we would acquiesce to that. That goes for each and every individual here.
But to just unilaterally say we're doing this person, this person, this person, and this person.... It's not a procedure that this committee has ever followed, not in the history of the eight years that I've been working with the committee. We've always worked at a planning session to state the schedule and witnesses, and to come up with an approximation of how many hearings would be necessary to deal with this. That's what we need, Chair.