I think there was a mischaracterization that this was a subamendment. In fact, it doesn't amend what Mr. Garrison is proposing.
I think there is a great deal of agreement around what Mr. Garrison is proposing. I certainly support it, but the more I hear about this time change at the chair's discretion.... There's no reason whatsoever that we as a committee cannot set the length of time that witnesses are to speak.
We're going to get quite used to this format very quickly. There should be work done with witnesses to have them set up. They're not just going to log in the moment our committee starts. There should be work done to make sure they're up and running and ready to testify.
The most important thing that those individuals are going to want to get out, the thing that they think will be impactful to our study, is what they're going to say in their opening statement. I do not accept that, within a two-hour time frame, we cannot tell people that the way our committee operates is that they have seven and a half minutes to speak and that it won't be reduced to five, and certainly not from 10 down to five.
I'm certainly supportive of what Mr. Garrison is proposing. I don't want to belabour the point, but the more I'm hearing, the more I'm uncomfortable with having some kind of fluid characterization of when.... I think that's the one thing that should be quite solid: how much time our witnesses have. For all of them, it's going to be their moment when they get to testify at a House of Commons committee. For all of us, this is our day to day. They're the ones under the most intense pressure. In order to have as much certainty as possible, I think it's only fair that we say that witnesses have the seven and a half minutes.