I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Given that we're one of the first committees that's starting bill review in this Parliament I want to establish a precedent for using your prerogative to speak with witnesses. I believe you said you use your prerogative to allow the witness to speak. My point of order relates to chapter 20 of O'Brien and Bosc under the role of chairs, vice-chairs, and acting chairs. Under procedural responsibilities it says, “They ensure that any rules established by the committee, including those on the apportioning of speaking time, are respected”.
I would reference the routine motions that we started at the beginning of this committee in terms of speaking order. I would then refer to the component of O'Brien and Bosc under committees under testimony where it says, “Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them”.
I would argue that would be at the direction of the member who's been apportioned time by you to answer questions. Through this point of order I would object, Mr. Chair, to your chair's prerogative in questioning witnesses. I know that chairs may ask questions, but how does your decision to do that relate to the standing order in terms of the apportioning of time if you took a Liberal spot to do so? I would ask you to clarify to the committee under what circumstances you will use your prerogative in the future to use opposition members' time to question the witness yourself and if this constitutes a change to the routine motion.