Thank you, Chair.
There were substantial changes made with the amendment and it's my understanding that some witnesses were dropped today, from what I heard from our colleague, Monsieur Barsalou-Duval. From what our colleague, Mr. Strahl, said, I think we do need an opportunity to review the witnesses and some of the conversations we've had today.
My concern is that now we've gone into a lengthy debate and really wasted the committee's time. Unfortunately, we had to send the folks who were testifying home. I wanted to hear from them today. That's why we started this. We could have done this post-meeting or through committee business. It's extremely unfortunate that the theatrics here have led down a path of wasting our time at committee and not getting any work done. Working on building consensus together has been completely disregarded.
We have another report we're working on and a study that we've been preparing for. I know the clerk has also been preparing to get witnesses. We've all been working on that in good faith by working together.
There's a substantial change with the amendment that was made by Mr. Bachrach. That does also change things. New names were added. We do need to have a conversation on the proportionality and the number of witnesses. With that, I have a number of other witnesses that I think we may need to look at as well.
A lot of conversation has been going on. For the record, could we get a clarification, Mr. Chair, of all the witnesses that are being proposed or have been previously proposed through the study, just so we can have a better idea of the parties and the witnesses' names that have been put forward? It's just so we can be clear.
I got Mr. Barsalou-Duval's witnesses. I believe there are three names. Is that correct?
Could we get an accounting of the names of the witnesses and find out who, so we can make sure? Then I may have others to add as well, or maybe not, depending on what the list is.
That's just to start with.