I apologize.
I have just a few points. There are reasons, of course, to support this, my amendment, and reasons not to. As with every motion there are pros and cons, but I do think it's important that however we vote, we vote based on fact.
First, there is nothing in my motion that says that any of the witnesses we are putting forward are representing anybody. The way that all committees work, the way witnesses come before us is that each party submits lists of witnesses. That doesn't mean those witnesses are Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Bloc witnesses. My motion just speaks to how we develop the list of witnesses who will be allowed to testify. I am just saying that each party be entitled to submit an equal number of witnesses so that we hear from an equal number of them. Any suggestion by my Conservative friends that this makes these witnesses compromised in any way is simply wrong.
Second, I take Mr. Lake's comment about the parties somewhat seriously, but I think it was understood that when I said [Technical difficulty—Editor] be entitled to an equal number of witnesses, I mean the parties represented on the committee. I think that would go without saying. What other parties would we be talking about—the Rhinoceros Party? Of course it's the parties on the committee. I think we can all understand that.
Let me read from the motion that my Conservative friends voted in favour of about 23 months ago. This was a motion for the health committee on the COVID-19 study by the committee from February 2020 until the committee was dissolved for the election. That was over 18 months. This is the motion they voted for: “That each party represented on the committee be entitled to select one witness per one-hour witness panel, and two witnesses per two-hour witness panel.”
That's what the Conservatives voted in favour of, the equality of witnesses, so the umbrage that is being taken today to a concept that they wholeheartedly supported last Parliament, for almost the entirety of the last Parliament, at the health committee is a little bit rich for me.
Mr. Thériault might correct me on this, but I believe we also had equality of witnesses when we did the PMPRB study as well. For the entire 43rd Parliament at the health committee, each party submitted an equal number of witness.
Duplication of witnesses can happen at any time. We all put forward our witnesses. We look at them. If there is overlap, that's fine. The clerk then attributes them to one party or the other.
I must correct my colleague Mr. Berthold. I've corrected him on this before. He continues to suggest that last Parliament, the first hour was for equality of witnesses and the second hour was for government officials. That's simply incorrect. That's simply wrong. We had most of our meetings, 90% of our two-hour meetings, where we had just the regular witnesses.
Might I just say that we're talking turkey here. This is all about how we determine what witnesses come before this committee, and I'm proposing that each party be treated the same. I'll also say that my good friend Mr. Thériault also brings excellent witnesses forward that have a unique perspective. Really, what we want to do at this committee is make sure that we have a diversity of opinion from a variety of perspectives to inform the committee's deliberations.
The Conservatives having 40% of the witnesses and the Liberals having 40% of the witnesses doesn't give the same diversity as 25, 25, 25, 25 does.
I want to conclude by thanking my good friend Dr. Powlowski for that.
It is my intention to do my best to bring forth witnesses, as I'm sure all of us should, that will add informed positions before the committee, that hopefully we can [Technical difficulty—Editor] the committee that other parties or members may not be aware of, so that we can enrich the discussion and the evidence before the committee, so that when we do write reports, they are as informed and diverse as possible. That is my sole goal in doing this.
Thank you.