Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I want to get to the witnesses as well, but on this procedurally, I just think.... At the finance committee, we used to have six or seven witnesses per hour, and it's really difficult. You have witnesses there who don't get a single question in a round. I'm proposing that perhaps.... I actually support the idea of capping the number of meetings as well, as then every party will have to prioritize witnesses. If we're into the 30-witness range, potentially, I think there has to be a prioritization.
The committee has already agreed to do this study for four meetings, so I don't have a problem with that. It's the getting out of control and the taking over of committee business for a study that's already had 12 meetings, so I propose that we move this to a subcommittee meeting where members can determine the appropriateness or the procedural functioning of a four-meeting.... This is one and this eats into that, but these are witnesses who were listed. Then, for the remainder of three meetings, you need a prioritization in terms of whether you want six witnesses, knowing that you probably won't be able to get questions to all of them.
It allows us to move on with this meeting, and you can, most appropriately, Mr. Chair, between you, the clerk and representatives from all parties, determine that prioritization of witnesses, as well as that fairness for each party to have their number of witnesses in a fashion that actually makes the meetings have a point to them, where you're going to have enough time to question every witness. I would propose, because I think it's important, that we work on that discussion at a subcommittee meeting where we can really iron out those details, and then we can move on with this meeting.