Thanks, Madam Chair.
I agree with everything that Mr. Virani has just said. I would like to remind people that this issue was addressed at PROC. As somebody said yesterday at a different committee, PROC is viewed as the committee of all committees. If it was deemed good enough there to adopt this process that Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Virani have suggested, then it should be good enough for us. I recognize that committees have the power to determine their own destiny and their own process, but I think we should view having had it considered at PROC as a good precedent and adopt it.
As for the time limits, I am also a litigator, like Mr. Virani. Sadly, lawyers—and now I realize, politicians—cannot always be brief, and time limits are necessary. Over my shoulder, you'll see a framed picture. It's a quote from a former associate justice of the United States Supreme Court in which he says, “Be pointed, be brief, and let your matter stand”. In other words, cut to the chase, because it saves people a lot of time.
Although we are good at it, sometimes witnesses need a little bit of steering in that process. I think five minutes is adequate time for witnesses to deliver their opening remarks, keeping in mind that the chair has absolute discretion. I have confidence in our chair that if a witness is five minutes into their opening statement and appears they need another minute, she will give them a minute. It all comes out in the wash at the end, in my experience. I find that the questions usually generate more useful information than the opening statements do. Having more time for questions is a good thing.
I propose we vote collectively on the amendments that Mr. Gerretsen and Mr. Virani put on the table.
Thank you, Madam Chair.