Mr. Chair, I sense the concern that impels our colleague Ms. McPherson to make this proposal. I am inclined to be sympathetic to a motion of this kind.
Perhaps my colleagues are familiar with the saying: “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. In other words, in certain situations, when you want to do better, you end up not helping yourself.
Here is my concern: if, by chance, I managed to convince my colleagues that, in one two-hour block, the three witnesses I proposed were relevant and useful for the committee's work, I would not want to be penalized by this motion stating that the Bloc Québécois is entitled to one witness only.
I understand completely what may be motivating our colleague, but it is my impression that, at the end of the day, this could be more harmful, because it would downplay the importance and relevance of a second or third witness that we might be submitting. They would be automatically rejected because each political party would have the right to one witness only.
Let me misquote Winston Churchill, who said that nothing is perfect in this world of sin and woe, and that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. No situation is perfect. In the past, I have expressed some reservations about the way in which we go about choosing witnesses.
Overall, I must acknowledge that everyone's point of view is almost always, let us say always, considered and that the diversity of opinion that our colleague is so passionately advocating has also been considered and honoured.
So it will never be too late for our colleague to bring the proposal back if she feels that the diversity of opinion has not been considered during the negotiations, the discussions, over the choice of witnesses. If that happens, I will be the first to let her know that my remarks today were not at all appropriate and that I would probably do better to revise my position.
However, to this point, we have managed to work collegially to establish lists of witnesses that all members of the committee are satisfied with. Those lists really have provided a diversity of opinion.
I completely understand our colleague's position and, in principle, I am sympathetic to her proposal. Despite that, my inclination is to vote against this proposal at this stage, because I would like us to have the opportunity to work in the same way as we worked in the previous Parliament.
I recognize that that was a different Parliament and the dynamics were different. Perhaps it will be otherwise in this Parliament. In which case, Ms. McPherson will always be welcome to introduce the motion again. At that point, my frame of mind may be such that I may want to support it.
In the current situation and in the light of the experience we had in the previous Parliament, I tend to feel that this proposal is perhaps a little premature. I note that a number of my colleagues sat on this committee in the previous Parliament. I do not believe that diversity of opinion was jeopardized or that any one political party around this table could have felt that none of its witnesses ended up being heard at this committee. That is not what happened.
