First of all, it's nice to see everybody back.
I thank Senator Carignan for the clarification. I think that helped me in terms of where my thinking was on this.
As a follow-up to Senator White, perhaps in number we look at something like each group providing two questions. They merge them together. If more questions come out of it, we can deal with it witness by witness.
I come from the perspective where I've appeared before committees. I think we have to keep in mind that not everybody comes from a place where there's an army of people behind them to draft and provide their presentation. In my experience, often the notice was to appear three days hence. Then there are all these demands on you in terms of it. We have to respect that not every witness comes to the table equally.
I think the bigger question we are dealing with here is really getting to the witnesses and then as a committee working collaboratively to really come to terms with which witnesses we need back and which witnesses we may need some clarification from.
In principle, the way Senator Carignan has done the amendment, we could limit the questions. We will still have witnesses whereby we'll have to make decisions on whether we need them back or not. But this sounds overly detailed without really having a vision of who it is we're talking about.
My final point is that it's the witnesses we need to get to and then learn from. As we go through the witness list, other issues may arise. We are coming to witnesses who are very core to the actual operation. I think they're necessary to hear from as soon as possible.