I think there's some misunderstanding here. I'm wondering if I could propose a subamendment to Mr. Bigras' amendment, or indeed if we can have an open discussion anyway, Mr. Bigras, about what option might be possible.
There is some confusion, and what I'm suggesting is that the members opposite consider this, at the last line: “be allocated to each subsequent questioner, alternating between the parties.” “Subsequent” means that each person would have an opportunity to ask one set of questions. It would not alternate between government and opposition; it would alternate between the parties. So it would be the Liberals, then the Bloc, then the NDP, then the Conservatives; then the Liberals, then the Bloc, then the Conservatives; then the Liberals, then the Conservatives; then the Liberals, then the Conservatives; and then it would go back to whoever the chair recognized or in fact some other semblance of questions. It would give everyone an opportunity to have one set of questions to the witnesses, which would be fair and give everyone an opportunity, but it would not be double time or anything else.
I would even propose that if there were enough time at the end, Mr. Cullen, it would then start with the Bloc, the NDP, and then the Liberals, and then back to the Conservatives. So if there are 15 minutes at the end, that would be dedicated to the parties that have the fewest members here but have the most persuasion of them.
I'm wondering whether you'd consider that. This is how the transport committee has been working. It has been very effective. Everyone has been happy because they've been able to ask a question, and it has left opportunity at the end. There have been 15 to 20 minutes at the end for opposition parties to put that forward.