side, Parliamentarians also recommended that it may be worthwhile to end the practice of structuring committees to mirror the structure of departments, and to allow for cross-cutting, issue-based committees to be formed. Parliamentarians were also clear on the need to ensure committee work leads to something.  Thus, "scrutiny" committees must have teeth.  "Policy" committees must have impact. Once the scrutiny of legislation function is separated from standing committees of the House, it also becomes more feasible to allow opposition members to serve as committee chairs, not unlike the current practice in the Senate.  In fact, many MPs who were interviewed -- from both the government and the opposition -- recommended that opposition parties hold a proportion of committee chairs that is roughly equal to the number of seats they hold in the House.  Parliamentarians from Quebec noted that a similar practice was adopted some time ago at the Assemble nationale, and the system has proven quite effective in getting committee members to work together. Finally, most Parliamentarians felt so strongly that committees should be the focus of immediate reform that they suggested that, in addition to those days in the parliamentary calendar dedicated to chamber business and the days dedicated to constituency work, a further amount of time should be set aside in the parliamentary calendar exclusively for committee work. The vast majority of those who participated in this project indicated that the most immediate impediments to their working effectively had to do with knowledge, training and resources, more than