That was my understanding.
I think some of this would have been avoided if there had been a steering committee and it had been worked out.
Anyway, the intent of my motion is to make it clear that we should endeavour to complete the clause-by-clause by February 8. That means looking at the meetings that have already been scheduled and adjusting them as necessary to make sure that we hear the technical witnesses and that we then do the clause-by-clause.
I think the motion is reasonable, in that it will allow for the ones that have been scheduled to be heard. I would point out, though, that we've already heard from 34 individuals, not counting today, and it has generally been a fair balance. Of the 34 more witnesses who are being heard, who are being scheduled as a result of your decision or somebody's decision, only three are from labour, so what we're going to hear now will not be a balanced representation. I'm not proposing that we add more labour, but I did want to make that point.
In fact, a number of the witnesses who have been scheduled are actually affiliates of national organizations we've already heard from. For example, we did hear from the Chamber of Commerce, and now we're going to hear from local chambers of commerce.
I just make those points, because people are arguing that we have to hear from people and that it's balanced. Well, the witness list that we have right now isn't that balanced, but we know what the arguments are, and I would prefer that we now try to get down to some business of actually working through this bill.
So I'm proposing, in effect, a schedule that I think is somewhat of a compromise, because it's not cutting anybody out who you've already scheduled, and saying that we may need to adjust a couple of meetings to add on an hour to make sure that everybody who is scheduled is heard, but that we do the technical and then the clause-by-clause by February 8.