Sorry, we're out of time on that one.
To our members, to our witnesses, with the way that the clock has been a bit messed up with, I don't think we have time to have another full round. I'm going to suggest that we thank our witnesses at this point and let them go.
Just before we go in camera for drafting instructions, I did want to take a minute to clarify a statement that I had made on Monday. If the witnesses want to go, please do that.
On Monday there were some questions raised about how certain decisions were made with this. We'll talk about this perhaps more at the subcommittee to determine how we want to proceed if this is going to be the last session for this study, or if we want to continue it. Nonetheless, I was asked some very specific questions about numbers. Numbers often tell different stories depending on what numbers you're using. And this is in part in response to comments made that this may not be a legitimate study because of numbers I threw out there.
I just want to make a couple of comments. I did send a note to the committee—we just got the translation back, so I've sent it to your P9 email addresses—explaining the process that we've used in choosing witnesses for this study, and actually for our previous studies in this Parliament so far. It's also based on a model that the committees used in the previous Parliament as well.
In brief, we get witness lists from each of the parties. We then have gone through them looking for themes and the priority of the witnesses listed, and then we look at the balance of parties in the House. That has been the structure used so far for our two previous studies, as well as in the 43rd Parliament. If we want to discuss that either at the subcommittee or at any point, we can talk about being more specific or refining that, but that's how the witnesses were selected for this one.
I did want to say, though, on the numbers that I gave you the bottom-line numbers, including for today, but the background behind it is as follows. Again, this may open up more questions, but I want to at least give a sense of where we started from. This is thanks in large part to our analysts and our clerk for providing me and working through these.
The Liberals started with 20 witnesses being invited. Five of those overlapped with the NDP witnesses, and one overlapped with both the Conservative and the NDP witnesses. There were 17 witnesses invited by the Conservative Party, with an overlap of one with the Liberals and the NDP. The Bloc had six who were invited with one overlapping with the NDP. And then when you look at the NDP, the NDP actually had 16 who were invited, but six overlapped with the Liberals, one with the Bloc, and one both with the Liberals and with the Conservatives. That's where it gets kind of messy, because there were witnesses who were unavailable or who had to cancel at the last minute, with three of the ones suggested by the Liberals cancelling, five from the Conservatives, two from the Bloc and six from the NDP.
In the numbers I shared on Monday, that's what we ended up with, but it wasn't through our not attempting to try to get robust lists of witnesses provided by the parties.
I just wanted to correct the record so to speak. What I gave you was very much the bottom line of what we ended up with, but through no lack of attempt on my part and that of the team to develop robust witness lists for the study so that it would be a very fair and robust study.
I see there are a couple of hands up, and my intention is that we then go into closed free questions or comments, but I just wanted to speak for the public record because I think it is fair to paint a bit of a broader picture than what I painted on Monday.
Mr. Angus, Mr. McLean, and then Mr. Simard.