I don't know, of course, what happened with this study before the last election, but I'm going to assume that it didn't progress to the point of calling witnesses. We're relaunching a study that was done previously, so I presume no witnesses were called on this the last time.
I guess I'm also thinking that it would be an odd precedent to start by loading up motions of this sort with names and lists of witnesses. I of course haven't been around long enough to know what the precedent is, but I have the impression that it's generally the chair who decides such things.
I'll steal a page from a comment Mr. McGuinty made a meeting or two ago and say that if the chair goes ahead and sets this up with the appropriate subcommittee's guidance and we don't like it, we can always come back and call for further specific witnesses, if we wish to do so. That would at least get us on the road today.