Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me begin by welcoming you to this position. As someone who occupied a similar position on the justice committee back when it was a minority Conservative government, I know how challenging it can be. I think you will find that if you are even-handed and understand that everyone at this table is working for the best interests of Canadians, we'll get a lot done here. That's my hope.
When I speak of even-handedness, I think what will give you the most difficulty are witnesses who may want to run out the clock on their testimony. Given that there are different interpretations at different committees, and also in the House in committee of the whole, as to how much time will be allocated to the questioner versus the witness, I'd be interested to hear at a future meeting—to give you some time to ascertain what your position would be—exactly how you would handle witnesses who are trying to run out the clock. If it's a six-second question, will it be a six-second answer?
I know there are occasions when you're going to have to exercise a great degree of judgment and discretion, because if you ask the question, “Please describe to me the origins of life”, that is a five-second question, but it may require five millennia to answer it. Situations may require great judgment on your part, so I hope you'll exercise that wise judgment.
I also have a number of motions I want to read into the record, if I might. There are five.
The first one reads as follows: “That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the national security risks posed by certain foreign telecommunications equipment providers, and that the committee call as witnesses the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and their officials, industry stakeholders, and telecommunications experts, and that no fewer than three meetings be dedicated to the study.”