I appreciate the offer. In years past, we've been on the seven-minute clock. I don't know if it was everybody's preference, Madam Chair. I don't know what the other members of the committee felt. Even that gets quite rushed sometimes. You get a witness that's a little long-winded and you get two questions in and you're out, even under seven minutes. I appreciate the committee moving perhaps more quickly.
This goes further, Madam Chair, as to how we book meetings. The number of witnesses often becomes problematic. If we stack up six, seven, eight witnesses, all of this becomes very problematic because if you have four questions for four witnesses, seven minutes isn't enough. It will be even harder with six minutes, because you'll only be able to address two witnesses. You'll see that some panels cover three different topics and you have to leave a topic entirely behind.
I would argue for the seven minutes, unless there's something prohibitive about that. Your total was 60, I believe you said, or 50 in the end, so tacking on seven onto the first round. I can remember Mr. Brison sitting I think in this chair at finance committee and asking for his second round to also be a full complement. I'll make the same argument because in finance we were very gracious to Mr. Brison and allowed him a full last round. That feels a bit self-serving, I guess, but remembering history is important sometimes.