Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think Ms. Bendayan's motion is very laudable. We do have to speed up our work. That is what I said at the beginning.
However, and I say this with all due respect, I am not certain it would be efficient. We see that it takes an hour to do one round of questions with a witness. If we have an hour and a half, does that mean we will do one and a half rounds?
As well, I am wondering about the three minutes we are allowed in the second round. I was discussing this with some people earlier. I think we should maybe go back to periods of five minutes. Some of us were frustrated about not managing to get through their questions in three minutes.
The motion says that we would have 1.5 hours not for a single witness, but for a panel of witnesses. If we adopt the motion as it is put forward, we will be entitled to five minutes each to begin. Then, how will the remaining half-hour be divided? Will each person be allowed two minutes? If we can't get it done in three minutes, how will we do it in two minutes?
The idea is interesting, but I am not sure that it would make us more efficient. Personally, I like the formula where we had two hours on Monday and two hours on Thursday. I think in two hours we would be able to cover a subject with a panel of witnesses. I am afraid that an hour and a half would be too tight.