I've just been saying, Mr. Chair, that yes, there has been a great deal of input in this. It wasn't all at committee. For example, on an issue of national significance in 2005 I held a forum with all kinds of small regional museums, and we submitted it to Heritage. We never knew what happened with it, but issues were raised about how the small museums tie into national policy.
What I find interesting about this motion—and I don't think we're all at opposite ends here, but are just talking about timing and how to go about this—is that I've never been in a situation where I've phoned stakeholders and asked whether they wanted us to invite them to come to speak and had them say no, please; we've spoken, we've submitted, we understand that a policy is coming down, and let's see what that policy is.
What I'm hearing from those stakeholders is that they would like to see the policy. That then gives us at committee a chance to review it and a chance to draw witnesses. If it's a great policy, it's going to be very good; if there are problems with it, we'll find out and can then bring back recommendations to the minister. But I believe that if we at this point are doing something when we know another process is under way, we're going to end up having to draw further witnesses when the policy comes down anyway.
So just in terms of finally getting something done here, I would say that I support Mr. Kotto's motion, because we're not saying we're not going to hear witnesses, but we want to hear what's coming first, so that we know how to set our agenda.