Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What you were just delving into is very important. I think a colleague should not interrupt other colleagues. It's becoming a pattern. In fact, you as chair have been interrupted. Just moments ago, you were interrupted.
We've had witnesses who have flown from far and wide to give their very deep and emotional stories of how they were treated and what they went through. They have been interrupted by the members who just interrupted here, and they made a point of that. They've complained and written about it. It was deeply upsetting for them, despite our having done training to understand them.
I think people on committees owe respect to each other. We all have our allotted times based on the parties' standings. Everybody gets their turn, and everybody's hands are taken. If anything, Mr. Chair, your liberty is very generous and your impartiality is without question. If anything, we might sometimes complain that you are too generous with your allotments. I think respect from colleagues across the aisle is very important.
Going back to the subamendment, I think when we call witnesses or ask them to write in, we always have to have the opportunity and liberty, if we have further questions, to ask them. It's no different from when we have witnesses who have 10 minutes or five minutes to speak and then have a round of questions. Sometimes they still feel they were not able to give all of their information. Usually you as chair have been very liberal in always reminding them that they're more than welcome to give written submissions.
Sometimes witnesses have given a page or two, and sometimes they've given dozens and maybe even up to 100 pages. That's the beauty of our Parliament: We afford everyone the opportunity to contribute. Our Westminster model of Parliament thrives on the examination of one another and getting answers. We have a responsibility to taxpayers and Canadian citizens to do the most responsible thing at all given times.
We have to have that onus in the event that we're not satisfied with it. We're here for our constituents and, in this particular case, veterans and constituents, to commemorate them. The last thing I would want to tell them is that we got a letter but weren't able to ask anything because we never tried.
That is an important thing. I'm not saying that it's going take any extra time. If it's voted for—and I urge my colleagues to vote for it—it will only be done if inevitably the response we get from the National Capital Commission is unsatisfactory. At that point in time, we would decide as a committee if we feel like we need to call them.
I think it's a reasonable amendment, so I urge my colleagues to vote for it.