Yes, absolutely.
Over the past six years as we went through studies and tried to do our committee work, it's been the nature of the committees that I've sat on in the past for us to come up with witness lists together—as a subcommittee perhaps on agenda—and really discuss and iron out how and what the scope of X, Y and Z study is going to be and who we'd like to hear from, always giving an opportunity to each party to be able to put forward witnesses who would enhance and add to the substance of whatever study it is that we're working on.
I am always very wary of our trying to limit and box ourselves in and not leaving that discretion up to committee members based on studies we've done and how we as a committee operate. I really appreciate that and would hope that we could continue, as I have done over the past six years, to work in the spirit of collaboration with members on an issue-by-issue basis and continue to make things work that way.
I understand that the governing party and the government does not have the chair in this committee, but I think this committee has the potential to really tackle the challenges of our time, especially when it comes to privacy and access to information. When we think about and really work on those issues that the scope of the committee's really about, I think such a motion would limit how we would be able to continue with those studies.
Like my colleague Mr. Fergus, I would also like to think about what the implications of such a motion would be for limiting or expanding what witnesses could be heard from what party, and how much time they would have, or how much these could be expanded. I would also like to perhaps put this aside for a little bit and move on to the next motion to see if we can work through those as we mull over what Mr. Green's motion really means.