The other thing I find is that it works well if, for instance, one meeting on TPP is all about agriculture. You have everybody talking about agriculture. Or maybe it's all unions. Maybe it's all the manufacturers. Sometimes there are broad strokes.
I find it's better to have clusters, if you can, because then you get the whole feel of it. If they're all farmers, all whomever, I think it's a way to get a good feel for what the stakeholders really believe and want.
Yes, we're going to try. We'll look at them, but I think we're looking at them overall so that everybody can get heard, and we can get a sense, and the percentage is there. As you know, the committee's not about getting the voices of the Liberals or Conservatives; it's getting the voices of Canadians. I know that sounds a little cliché, but it's getting everybody's voice, right?
It will go by that rule a bit, but I'm going to try to get people who are in the same group, and then you can get that questioning in. I'll just use an example. You can have the grain growers of wherever and the farmers' union, and they could be totally different, but it's kind of nice to have them at the table at the same time. I was on the agriculture committee, and I found that sometimes it's good to have those types of groups together and you can flush it out a little more.
Go ahead, then.