Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will not repeat Mr. Davies' comments. I will just add a few comments to reassure my Conservative colleagues.
In the past, we have proposed witnesses who were not strictly affiliated with the Bloc Québécois and who made clerks' work and research work easier. We were simply doing our job by trying to find relevant witnesses. However, Conservative members have often felt that the proposed witnesses were [Technical difficulty—Editor]. However, at the beginning of the meeting, people were not saying that the witness was affiliated with the Bloc Québécois or the NDP. The Conservatives have often actually put questions to the witnesses we proposed, and I was very happy about that, as those witnesses had a unique perspective. It worked out very well.
So this is not a matter of partisanship. It is simply about ensuring that the meeting goes well. Witnesses are quite often invited to testify, but they withdraw, for instance. When we have the responsibility to provide witnesses in equal numbers, we also have the responsibility to try to find others. So we must all help one another to have as many relevant witnesses as possible. That would also avoid—I'm not sure I understood the comment of one of my Conservative colleagues and I no longer remember who it was—but if we have to start a new discussion on the priority of witnesses we want to hear from, I wish us good luck.
Once we establish right away that we all have the responsibility to propose witnesses and that those witnesses will be heard from, that takes care of questions and discussions on the kitchen and the plumbing. It also helps us get to the bottom of the issue as quickly as possible.
Having worked in this way for about two and a half years, I am telling you that it works very well and that everyone is happy with this method. So I invite you to vote for this proposal.