I'll be relatively brief. This is about how we want to set our meetings and run them efficiently. I think it is a good practice and will enforce some discipline.
We run the risk of the committee seemingly ending up with a dysfunctional nature, where what will occur is a bunch of speeches every time there is witness testimony, whether that's because it's a fellow member of Parliament, a colleague as a witness, or others who maybe feel a bit unsettled because they don't have an answer on the tips of their tongues. This will force some discipline. Frankly, it's quite reasonable, and, regarding a member's time with witnesses, it is the member's choice how they choose to use their five minutes.
The member may like to make some opening remarks and show some statistics to set the stage for some questions. That is incredibly reasonable as well. I don't think it means the witness should have that long, in terms of replying, just because there was a set-up.
The question itself should be specific. We will get far better answers from witnesses. The meetings will run more crisply and more efficiently, and we'll all find ourselves a little more informed and have a better level of discussion.