This is just an observation. This seems very unusual. I've not been on a committee where this approach has been taken. I'd be interested to hear the rationale, because as I look at the results of the election, I think the Bloc was around 8% of the vote and a little bit less than 10% of the seats. The NDP was around 16% of the vote and I believe around 7% of the seats. I don't really understand the rationale, because it would be a significant deviation from any committee that I've been on in my 16 years as a parliamentarian.
We're dealing with enough issues around trust in terms of the way that we proceed. Canadians voted a few months ago. Canadians want to see themselves reflected in the witness lists as a proportion that comes from a part of the country or a proportion that comes from any community in Canada. It's incumbent on us as the members of the committee to have those discussions.
Of course, not every witness who comes before committee is assigned to a political party. Many witnesses who are experts or interested in coming before committee will put their names forward, submit their names to the clerk and propose to be a witness before a committee in that way.
If anything, as a health committee studying important issues that over the last couple of years have tended to divide Canadians, assigning witnesses by political party seems to be just about the worst way to go about apportioning witness time. We have a discussion in terms of a party. We put forward suggestions for witnesses, but as I explained, taking a look at the numbers, I don't really understand the rationale.
Don, I've served with you for a long time. I have a lot of respect for you. I'd like to hear a bit more about the rationale in terms of this proposal, because it is highly unusual, at least in relation to the committees I've been on.