Again, Mr. Chair, the issue I have with giving them longer time is that the committee members don't get the proper time to evaluate or ask questions. I cannot understand why they need 45 minutes to explain something that they've given to us in advance--or even 30 minutes. I can't understand why they need that, regardless. If we have the information in front of us, we should allow them to give their 10-minute presentation and then allow them to have the full benefit of the period to be asked questions and to explore the report.
What we're going to have is a presentation with no time to explore it. What kind of information are we going to garner from that? We read it, but can't explore it. That's what I'm concerned with, Alex. They'll come in and do their presentation, but then we'll have no ability to question them on it. Again, subject to peer review, I don't know if it's a qualified report or not. Mr. Easter has his interpretation, but that's his own interpretation. It's not the interpretation of the industry as a whole, for example.
That's what I'm concerned about. How do we make sure we have enough time to do proper questioning? In the seven minutes, then the five, five, and five, how do we get through so that all committee members can actually participate? By adding length onto their testimony, we take away everybody else's ability as committee members to ask questions.
I'm sorry, I can't support this.