I'll give a very short answer on it.
There are two options. I think there's a third that would probably be rejected, which is that you designate lead questioners for each area; give them, say, 30 minutes each; and then go on from there.
Of the two options, one is to meet in camera, because you can have a much more relaxed investigation without the attention of the press and the public. That's why your organizational meetings, discussions, reports, and other similar discussions are often in camera, but there is a disadvantage. It's observable, for example, in Britain, when the public accounts committee met in camera, that maybe four or five members, at most, participated in the questioning, and maybe 30% to 50% of the questions would be asked by one member. Once it started meeting in public, it was the same as in this committee: it has 10 minutes per member and that's it.
The other possibility is to follow the Quebec model.
The Quebec National Assembly allocates a certain amount of time to each political party, rather than to each MNA.
Each party gets an amount of time, and then it's up to the party to decide how it uses that time. That might be worth considering. I have a slight reservation about it for this committee because it emphasizes the party differences rather than the importance of the individual members.
These different possibilities can be looked at.