You can call me Julie.
Anyway, I find it admirable, Mr. Poilievre's admiration for our former chair.
Mr. Chair, I don't recall that the rule Mr. Poilievre is stating existed the last time around in the finance committee. If I recall correctly, Mr. Easter tried to manage the time. He did try to keep it more or less in the same time frame.
However, similar to what Ms. Chatel was alluding to, sometimes an answer takes a little longer than a question. Overall, I think the former chair tried to be very fair and very balanced and, if anything, he tried to give a little extra time particularly to our opposition members. I don't believe we ever had a rule in place that formalized that if you asked a two-second question, the witness had to give a two-second answer. Quite honestly, I think it would be detrimental to our hearing some of the more complete answers we may need to hear in order to have proper deliberations and make proper decisions and recommendations on this committee.
While I appreciate Mr. Poilievre's concern, I think there has always been an element of fairness around how long people speak. There is consideration in general around the responses. I'll leave it at that.
I would not be in favour of this motion. It would be negative in terms of our being able to hear proper and full answers and to debate and make proper recommendations, as I've already said.