In a moment I'll look for points of order, comments or queries on this.
As I try to guide this discussion and find resolution, I will point out two items.
Mr. Desjarlais has proven himself on this committee. His word has been trustworthy. I've found that to be the case, which is why I think I work well with him. He stands behind what he says.
This is important for two reasons. He raises the point that not only is there the threshold that he has—and again, Mr. Desjarlais won't be looking for the answers he wants to hear—but that he'll be looking for answers that he views as being credible. We don't often hear the answers we want to hear, but we do judge witnesses by how they answer, the words they use and their general posture. While witnesses might not always be forthcoming for some reason—maybe they don't remember—you do get a sense of that. I think Mr. Mr. Desjarlais often judges that as he questions witnesses.
The other thing—and I think this is a very valid point that he raises—is that should Mr. Bains come forward here and, let's say, Mr. Desjarlais was subbed out for someone who might not have his view, then the Speaker would then have a very strong case to say there's nothing here.
I think Mr. Desjarlais has made some very good points, but that's just me trying to guide this to a resolution.
Like many of you, I've been in committees in which filibusters have gone on for days. I hope that won't happen here. This does buy some time, I think, for the committee to bring back Mr. Bains and to hear from him in hopefully a more forthcoming and credible manner.
I'll look for some points of order, which is a bit unconventional—