Mr. Chairman, the nature of the point of order is the most recent ruling that you've made in this committee. It is otherwise a very well-chaired committee to date, I might say, Mr. Chairman, but the most recent ruling that you made--the ruling giving Mr. Schreiber the option to simply say “Defer”--has, I think, actually given the witness too much latitude and not taken into consideration his obligations as per a Speaker's warrant.
It's a point of order in that I believe the ruling should have been that if the nature of the question is such that it cannot be answered without the necessary documents, then the witness may say “I defer”, but if the question is phrased in such a way that it's of a general nature--if I asked, for instance, “What year were you born, Mr. Schreiber?” or “When did you come to Canada, Mr. Schreiber?”--I don't think the witness can clam up and remain silent, given the nature of the authority of the Speaker's warrant.
I was hoping, Mr. Chairman, that you might want to consult the senior law clerk so that we can get some answers to some questions of a general nature and not give Mr. Schreiber a pass on every question we ask.