Thank you very much.
I think in the interest of time, I will address the point of order myself rather than open it up for further input, because this is our opportunity to hear from the witnesses in the form of questioning.
The standing committees are, as we've all heard, creatures of their own, and they can decide what they want to do. I'll read from page 1004 of O'Brien and Bosc:
The standing committees may themselves initiate, without first obtaining the prior approval of the House, any study they feel it advisable to undertake, insofar as it falls within the mandate provided to them by the Standing Orders. The committees then undertake to define the nature and scope of the study, to determine how much time they will devote to it and whether or not they will report their observations and recommendations to the House. These studies represent a large part of the work done by committees and the reports they present to the House.
As well, Standing Order 108 says that standing committees are
empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:
And it goes on from there.
This committee made a decision to study these clauses. This committee then called witnesses. The committee has the right to do that. The committee also has the right to not respond or to respond back to the finance chair with recommendations or no recommendations. This right is totally with the committee.
With that in mind, thank you for the point of order. We will continue.
Now, who...?
I believe it was you, Ms. Rempel, who I gave the opportunity to—