All right. Madam Davidson, let me repeat, because it's something on which I had discussions with House officers, even as early as this morning, to be absolutely sure. There was an incident in another committee where there was some variable activity going on.
In any event, and I think if you look at the transcripts—I stand to be corrected—there were two different lists that would be kept in terms of slots. One list is with respect to witnesses. As you know, we have approved, by the routine motions adopted by the committee, which party speaks, in which order, and how many minutes it gets. In that case, should we be questioning a witness, a member can relinquish their slot for another person who is not a permanent member, so that the equity we have established in the routine motions.... That was the motion adopted by the committee when we were formed in the first instance.
The second item I mentioned was with regard to the debate of motions, as we are doing right now. There is nothing to prescribe which party and for how long; people can speak as many times as they want and for as long as they want, provided there's not repetition and provided they remain relevant.
In that case, Madam Davidson, a member of Parliament who comes, who is not a permanent member, can have their name on the list. They can only speak if no other permanent member wishes to speak or if the committee allows the member to speak and to override that. Those are the two cases.
I'm sorry there's some confusion, but I'm absolutely sure that is the practice and precedent of committees for the last 17 years that I've been here.
You still have the floor, though, Madam Davidson.