I think there's a misunderstanding right now, and I'd like us to clarify it.
We had a connection issue with the second witness. To solve the problem, we collectively agreed to grant the first witness three minutes to speak.
According to our understanding, the first round was divided in two. So, six minutes divided by two would normally be the equivalent of three minutes for the first witness and three minutes for the second. There would then be a second round.
However, you decided that this second round with the second witness was the second round. I don't see why the second witness would have less speaking time than the first to answer questions.
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I consider this our first round, which we divided in two, meaning three minutes for the first witness and three minutes for the second. That was my understanding of things. Obviously, it was not yours.
I will defer to my colleagues. I hope my interpretation is correct and that this is still the first round, divided in two.