Thank you for that.
Are there any other comments before I make some, and then ask for the wording of the motion to be read?
Mr. Kenney points out that this is a situation where the opposition chairs the committee, which is true. I chaired the fisheries committee for three years in the last two parliaments. I just wanted to bring to the attention of members, particularly new ones, that there is no hard and fast rule in any committee as to the order and length of questioning in each round; it really is a matter for each committee. Just because a motion is passed one day does not mean the question cannot be revisited in the future if the committee, in general, finds that the motion passed hasn't been working to the satisfaction of the committee, or at least to the majority of the committee.
Allow me to bring to your attention what we did in the fisheries committee—admittedly, Mr. Kenney, with me as the government member as chair. There, the Conservative Party began with a ten-minute round, the Bloc Québécois followed with a seven-minute round, and the NDP followed with a five-minute round. That, I think, deals somewhat with the two and one situation Madame Lavallée mentioned. The Liberals then came up at the end with ten minutes. In the following rounds it was five minutes each for the CPC, the Bloc, the NDP, and the Liberals.
That was a suggestion. It did recognize that the official opposition party should have a little bit more time than the other parties; it did recognize that the NDP was still on the committee, so they had a chance every round; it also gave the government party ten minutes on the first round and five minutes on each round. This committee had timeframes that Mr. Tilson has moved, so the past history of this committee would be what Mr. Tilson moved.
I simply bring those facts to the attention of members.
So far, we have a motion, which I'll ask the clerk to read out in full.