Well, we haven't brought it to a vote yet, but I take your warning. Thank you.
Mr. Steckle actually moved that we follow last time's questioning agenda. Does anyone have concerns with that? It's not actually the one that's here. I read it off the top of our sheet from last time. It's on the record. I can read it again, if you'd like. This is what the motion will read that Mr. Steckle has moved:
By unanimous consent, it was agreed, - That witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statement; that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated 7 minutes for the first questioner of each party; that before the second round of questioning, other members who have not spoken and who wish to speak may do so for 5 minutes; and that thereafter, 5 minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner [alternating between Government and Opposition parties].
That actually speaks to Mr. Miller's issue, in that at the discretion of the chair I can move to someone else and/or a point of clarification on another questioner's question. We have that flexibility. I think this is very workable. It was as good as we could get last time. We can certainly go back and revisit this. If you have a concern, bring it back to the planning and priorities committee, the subcommittee, and we can revisit it.
Having read that again--Mr. Steckle has moved it--do we have consensus from the committee to move in that direction?
We have one nay from Mr. Miller. Other than that, everyone is fine with it.
(Motion agreed to)