I sat on the last committee, and we had many witnesses. I don't know how many witnesses are left.
What I'm concerned about in the work of our committee is our ability to ensure a fair hearing. If we just take the people who weren't heard as our only witness list now, we might not actually have the totally balanced view that we had before, because many of the main players have already spoken.
This is a new Parliament. The historical record of this bill will reflect only the people we cross-examine now, as new parliamentarians.
I'm looking around the room, and I see many people who have not sat on this committee before. I would not like to tie the hands of this committee in deciding how we set about our business, which is to sit down, submit a witness list, go through that witness list, and decide what we need to hear, when we need to hear it, and how we need to hear it, so that we ensure that we actually have a good balance, because we have to represent fairly the issues of the artists and their royalties. We have to hear from the education community, as there's an effect on students and consumers, and there's an effect on industry.
Many of those viewpoints were heard in a previous Parliament by previous parliamentarians, but I would prefer to make sure that our witness list reflects who we need to hear from. I think we can do that in a reasonable manner. This isn't about filling up a list that goes on forever, but I think we'd be better off and more balanced making those choices. Some might be new, and some might have spoken before, but if they're representing major arts organizations, I don't see how I can go back to them and tell them that because they gave their evidence, they're not going to be heard. I think that's going to send a bad message, particularly in the arts community, and we're very concerned about that.