Good. Thank you.
Now I'll refer briefly to Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which says:
There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before the committee beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee.
Of course, that's quite a broad range. Even when you get into relevance, it's hard to determine what relevance is, especially when we're talking about backlogs and how the point system might affect that.
I would also say to the committee that Marleau and Montpetit make this reference as well:
...public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of a legal opinion, or which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness' responsibility to the Minister....
We're quite clear on that. There are no rules governing the nature of questions beyond the general requirement of relevance, which is very hard to define, and I would ask members to stay away from asking the witnesses about their opinions on policies, because such questions may place them in a conflict with the minister.
Go ahead, Mr. Telegdi.