First of all, I think it's a very excellent subject for all the reasons that my colleagues have said so far. I also like the fact that I think the issues that are mentioned give us a really broad range of perspectives.
I have two things I wanted to raise for our consideration. One is whether or not we really want to have the Minister of Health come to one of those meetings because that wipes out a meeting generally, pretty much, for witnesses, so you're really talking about five meetings for the general public and stakeholders.
The second thing I wanted to raise is that it should be clear that each party be entitled to an equal number of witnesses. I can move that as an actual amendment, if we wish. The reason that that's a good thing—you can hear me say this a lot—is you get a real diversity of perspectives when that happens, and issues.
One thing I've learned is no party has a monopoly on good ideas or on perspectives. It's been my experience in this committee that when each party is bringing a different issue or a different angle with different witnesses before the committee on a subject, it really adds a lot of depth and diversity to the perspective.
I'm going to move a formal motion to amend to say that the study consist of a minimum of six witness meetings, with each party entitled to propose an equal number of witnesses, or however that could be phrased, with each party to be entitled to an equal number of witnesses.