I said this earlier in the last meeting. I can't tell you how many problems there are with this idea of apportioning equally the numbers of witnesses by party. First of all, we could get into taking a look at the math around the election campaign. In the amendment, he doesn't reference, for example, the Green Party. He doesn't even reference official parties or members of the committee, I don't think. I'm not sure if every party that ran in the election gets a chance to have an equal number of witnesses. I'm not sure what that means.
Secondly, since when do we specifically assign witnesses to specific parties? What party does the Canadian Paediatric Society belong to? Do our witness groups want to be assigned to a specific party? What party does the Canadian Medical Association get apportioned to?
Typically, we have a conversation by consensus on our witness list. Yes, we all suggest witnesses, but, typically, one organization might be on three different parties' witness lists. We have a conversation, as we organize for our committee hearing, in terms of what witnesses as a committee we're going to choose to have come. Generally, it's worked well over the years to do that.
Again, I don't really understand this idea of apportioning witnesses by party.
The other thing is that the beauty of this system is that Canadians are allowed to write to the chair of the committee through the clerk and ask to appear before the committee. Do they have to declare an affiliation with a party, so that they know what party's witness list they're going to be a part of? I don't understand why this would even be considered.
As a committee, surely we can all suggest witnesses. Witnesses can apply to come before the committee and then we can have a conversation by consensus to decide who the witnesses are going to be.