Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I agree that no one wants to take a witness by surprise, to reiterate the point Mr. Maloney just made. It should be clearly articulated to witnesses prior to their arrival what the time limit would be. I think injecting the discretionary point in the hands of the chair is critical to addressing the second point raised by Mr. Moore, which is that if perhaps five minutes is too short, maybe something in the order of seven and a half minutes would be sufficient.
I want to reiterate that we live in a world of time limits, so witnesses coming here, even if it's their first time, have to understand that time is not unlimited. We don't have nine-hour committee meetings, absent certain extreme situations. There's always a time limit that's applied. We're just debating what the time limit should be.
I don't know whether to call it friendly or not, but my original language was that it was a minimum of five minutes. That is what I indicated, but it could be something along the lines of, “that witnesses be given between five and seven and a half minutes, at the discretion of the Chair, for their opening statement”. That would perhaps accommodate what Mr. Moore was indicating but give flexibility and a potential window, and it would still save time so that all people could pose their questions.
As Mr. Maloney said, we are absolutely in favour of rejigging the order so that the third and fourth parties get the ability to ask a second round of questions. It's unfair for them not to be able to do so, but let's ensure that Liberal and Conservative parties also have the ability, if they are now on the back end, to pose their questions. That can be accommodated by a slight adjustment in the time limits.
Thank you, Madam Chair.