On a point of order, when we had questions of witnesses in the same situation last week, you aggressively overtook those Standing Orders and you really stretched it. When questions are asked of witnesses--and certainly witnesses have come forth because they have different experiences and they bring to the table different knowledge--I think you keep reminding us of that Standing Order. It just goes a bit beyond the point. I think you're going a bit beyond the point of saying to us, “Hey, children, don't reach over the desk and grab the candy.” I think we're all grown people over here and we know what we're doing. Last week, sir, you certainly overwhelmingly kept on badgering this side on the questions.
If the witnesses have received a position with the federal Government of Canada, and their competence and their knowledge and skill bring them to this position, I am sure they're competent and knowledgeable enough to answer questions that are put forth to them, not on any political affiliation but on whether they have sought political office in the past. That certainly adds to the individual's credibility and the individual's worth. We're not asking them about a party affiliation, and you keep badgering us on this point. Certainly it is not something the chair should do.