I'd like to add my voice to that of Mr. D'Amours.
My view was that only some of the witnesses should be recalled. However, I believe Mr. D'Amours' argument is an important one. They just kept passing the buck. To illustrate what I mean, just remember what happened when we put questions to officials from Public Works and Government Services. The Auditor General's reaction was quite the opposite. She didn't agree with what was being said.
Furthermore, when I asked who had taken responsibility for the issue when Mr. Fonberg left Treasury Board, the answer we were given was not satisfactory, in my opinion. I know for a fact that someone at Treasury Board has the same responsibilities that Mr. Fonberg had. We were told no, that no one had replaced him. So, I think there are some questions that need to be asked again.
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to make my usual comment: can you provide that in writing?
So, there is good reason… I know there have been discussions on this. On several occasions, I myself raised the fact that, when we have a meeting with so many witnesses appearing, the time allowed to question all the witnesses is fairly limited.
I don't intend to take up any more time. Actually, I just wanted to say that I agree with Mr. Kramp in terms of issues we want to explore in greater detail. Since we will have a little bit of time to prepare that meeting, I would suggest that the executive meet and set certain parameters with respect to the questioning. Like Mr. Kramp, I think we should have a more precise idea of what we are looking for from the witnesses when they appear a second time.