I agree with Carol. I think it's problematic to have witnesses come for just five minutes. I know you and I had chatted about it briefly. Many times witnesses travel from a great distance. I know there's an opportunity for them to provide briefing notes in advance, with sufficient notice, but we all know that sometimes witnesses are scheduled fairly tightly before the meeting and there often isn't time for them to submit their documents in sufficient time to have them translated into both official languages.
And when we bring people here and just give them five minutes to speak, particularly when they've travelled from a distance, I know that in other committees I've been on it's been problematic. Even when we have several witnesses and we only give them five minutes, it's very difficult for the chair, as well, to keep them to five minutes if it's on complex issues.
I know there could be occasions when we want to keep them to five minutes, but I think the general rule would serve us better at ten, to allow them to fully present their case or their particular point of view.
On the questioning round, again, it's the same piece. On all committees I've served on their initial practice has been a seven-minute round on the first go-round, and then a five-minute round on the second. Again, that seven-minute round allows you time to fully explore an issue with a witness, which is very difficult to do in five minutes.
I think it's to the committee's benefit to have as much time as possible with the witnesses before us to really explore some of these issues.