One other thing we could consider if Mr. MacAulay successfully pleads his case, and I use the word “plead” advisedly, is that perhaps we could change the order of the second round so the Liberal comes last in the round. If we run out of time, Mr. MacAulay doesn't get his final five minutes and if we have the time, he gets it.
I'm not in favour of keeping the second round the way it is, because I think Mr. Chisholm is right. We scramble around on this side—we have five questioners—so everyone will have five minutes. Mr. MacAulay will get at least 10. He's asking for a guaranteed 15. Nobody on this side will get that much exposure to our witness, not even close.
Yes, he's right that historically that's been the way. It used to be that the NDP held that position. The reason was that nobody had the power to change it. When we had minority governments, we discussed it every time to see if maybe we thought the order was fair to all the parties, but we didn't have the votes to carry the day. This has been raised by the NDP.
I think it is a valid question. We've now gone from 12 members to 10 members, so does the speaking order still make sense? I'm not sure how we resolve this, Mr. Chair. You haven't told us yet how this is going to be resolved.
We're not in favour of the status quo. At the very most I think we would be prepared to offer keeping the Liberal in the second round but at the end of the second round, the long second round as usual.