Thanks.
Not to belabour the point, but I think there is some confusion over what was proposed by Mr. Virani. When it was originally presented, I thought I heard him say that because there could be technical difficulties at the beginning of the meeting, witnesses' time could be reduced. Now we're talking about something quite different.
Obviously the witness needs to know. It is only professional that we tell people in advance how much time they will have. I'm comfortable with saying that the witnesses would speak for seven and a half minutes and I'm comfortable with what Mr. Garrison has proposed for the speaking order, but I find problematic the idea that we would use up the witnesses' time rather than find some other way.
I don't know that we're all talking about the same thing. What I heard was that we would have 10 minutes of speaking per witness unless, at the chair's discretion, we found that we had less time because of some technical glitch, and then the witness would be told, “By the way, you only have five minutes, not the 10 minutes we originally told you.” Now we're talking about something different, and it is a really important distinction. If we're talking about a permanent move to seven and a half minutes, then that's quite different.
Once we get up and running, we would probably have very little reason to reduce a witness's time to speak, and if anything, that should come out of the question time, not out of the one shot that witnesses have to put their thoughts out there.
Maybe we could get a little clarity on the nature of the amendment. Are we sticking with 10 minutes with a potential to reduce it, or are we looking at a more permanent change to the standing order?