Previous members of this committee know that I disagree with the time allotted to question witnesses. My position has not changed, but I am sure that, if I resubmitted the same motions that I made in 2004 and 2006, they would suffer the same fate. I hope that that the consequences will also be the same; that is, in order to convince us to agree to these motions about the time allocated for questions as presented, the chair assured us that he would personally rein in witnesses who, in order to avoid awkward questions from committee members, give never-ending answers that often verge on being out of order.
Perhaps one day, we might want to take a look at the way in which all committees operate. I recognize that there are advantages in having our rules similar to other committees. I feel sure that, with the same chair, there would be the same approach. I recognize that he has conducted the debates with great impartiality and that he is aware of the tactics that some witnesses can use.
I know whereof I speak; these tactics have been widely used, and widely broadcast and published, in Quebec when committees were looking into the sponsorship scandal. I also pointed out that some officials—who shall remain nameless and who no longer hold office anyway—had the habit of starting right into a speech after the first question they were asked so that almost all the allotted time was used up.
So I suggested that the time for questions to witnesses be cut in half, but that the time should only be for asking the questions, not for listening to the answers. I gather that I was considered revolutionary at the time.
To avoid useless discussion, I am counting on the same understanding from the chair. Given that he is aware of the situation himself, I imagine that he will continue to conduct the debates in this way and that he will intervene when a witness starts to use the tactic unreasonably.
So I will not suggest an amendment.