Thank you.
Mr. Chair, before I came to this meeting this morning, I resolved that I would live by the maxim that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open my mouth and confirm all suspicions. I find myself speaking a little more than I had intended, so please forgive me my lack of experience.
Especially with timidity, I wish to take some small issue with Mr. Scarpaleggia as to the question of who has an incentive to boycott a meeting and who does not. I haven't been here long enough to know, but I can imagine a situation in which there might be witnesses appearing who might be favourable to a government position, and the opposition might have incentive to boycott.
I think the chair can question witnesses, but it's my view that the chair's role is best fulfilled by not descending into the arena, and that we would be well advised to allow for government questioning other than by the chair. That would make committees run more fairly, in my opinion.
However, I'd like to bring us back to the noble spirit with which this discussion began, which is our intention that when witnesses travel from a distance they not be left unheard. Truly, if that's the noble intention we're trying to achieve here, then we ought to remove any possibility of witnesses not being heard by reason of boycott, by either the opposition or the government. If our intention is that witnesses be heard, then let's get rid of this whole opportunity for game playing and just take that sentence out.
Thank you.