May I just raise one more question with respect to witnesses' statements and questioning? I think it would speak to Ms. Duncan's concerns.
My experience is that occasionally our committees overbook witnesses. It gets to the point where, if we have five or six intervenors or four to seven people at a table, it becomes very difficult to have a meaningful exchange. I would also, I think, speak to the chances of having a third round, a full round, which would give Ms. Duncan and other members of the committee the chance to ask questions.
I don't know whether we should cap it, but I just wanted to raise it with everyone, because I think three witnesses at thirty minutes, or a maximum of four witnesses at forty minutes, is enough substance for us to chew on in a two-hour meeting, with the right questions and answers, for us to really get to some tough and important questions.
Sometimes we're so rushed and sometimes there are so many intervenors here that I feel bad for the witnesses, some of whom come down, or fly in, and have six or seven minutes, or they're sharing a presentation. I don't think it's respectful of their time either. I'm wondering if we can, as a kind of rule of thumb, say we can hold ourselves to maybe three witnesses, three solid witnesses. They may bring people accompanying them to answer questions, I don't know, but that's 30 to 35 minutes, you know, with your leeway and your discretion. If someone's in their eleventh minute, I don't know how you intend to proceed, but I don't think...you know, you will cut them off. But if it's 33 minutes, and with three intervenors, three witnesses, it gives us more time to have a more meaningful dialogue.
It's just a suggestion to consider.