I know I keep referring back to the 42nd Parliament, but I think it's really important that we have all sides of the story, all sides of the studies. In the past I have asked that, when you are sending in your lists, you prioritize those people who you ultimately want to see. Those are going to be your number ones, two and threes. That person who's number 20 is, if you're thinking you've got to put somebody in, but if we don't hear from them, that will be okay. I would ask that all parties, when you're putting in your lists, to please prioritize them. Who are your top three? Who are your top five? Who are your top 10? I think that brings different ideas to it all.
Please send those lists in, and then we can work them in. In the past, the clerk and the analysts have worked really well putting groups together to make sure that, when we're focusing on a specific topic, we have groups that can all work together. I know that they have done an excellent job on that, so there might be a little bit of a theme to those panels.
One other discussion is about timing. Is there a preference? I've seen different committees do different things. Is there a limit to how many witnesses you would like to see? It could be one hour of two or three witnesses, for example. Is there anything that you've seen that you want to adopt from other committees that you think would be in our best interest, or should we just continue with small, one-hour, two- or three-witness panels moving forward?
Gudie.