Thank you, Chair.
I want to make a couple of points in response to this proposal by Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Chambers.
The first one is that I think two hours provides a significant amount of time to answer those questions and cover those topics that Mr. Poilievre spoke to. When you think about the routine motions we just passed and how much time each member of the committee will have, I think two hours is pretty substantial. I've been an MP for only two years, but I have watched and I've participated in other committees. It was felt that two hours was a significant time for the minister. I'm talking about how not just government members felt about it but how opposition members felt about it. Two hours is significant. The input that Monsieur Ste-Marie, Mr. Blaikie and others have said they would want to hear from the minister could be obtained in that two-hour period.
The second thing is that my understanding was that the time period of two hours allocated to the minister's appearance was agreed to by all parties in the House. This was passed as part of a House motion. Just correct me if I'm wrong about that. It was something that all members agreed to in the House itself. Obviously, when that motion was passed, after agreement and presumably discussion about various aspects of that motion, it was something that all parties felt was reasonable.
My question would be this: Why did we think it was reasonable then and we don't think it's reasonable now?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.