There are a couple of things that I think are worth saying in response to some of the previous points of order.
The first has to do with the conversations among the whips. There are times when various parties are on the wrong end of a decision taken at the whips' table. They do make a lot of decisions about which committees meet when, which committees are cancelled and which other committees go longer. I don't think it's helpful when one party doesn't like the outcome at the table, where they are sometimes on the winning side, for them to reflect on decisions that are taken at that table.
The reason I'm willing to sit through question period is that I would like to get through this process. If we can group clauses in order to make up for the time we won't spend voting while we're in question period, then I'm happy to break for question period, but I'm not prepared to lose the time in a process that, frankly, has been very frustrating, and I'll leave it at that.
We've been doing about 50 votes an hour. If we want to group 50 clauses now and go until two o'clock, I'd be prepared to do that.
For me, it's about the time, so if we're not going to be able to group clauses, as is often done in clause-by-clause, then we're going to sit at this table. I'm happy to make that a decision of the committee. If folks object to the whips doing that, I'm happy to vote to stay through question period. I'm happy to do that at this table. I recognize that we can't because it's out of order. That's a little problem for the chair to solve, but we could do it by UC.
In any event, this is a problem with a solution. We can be reasonable and talk about it, but that has not been a feature of this process for weeks now, so I don't have a lot of confidence in that.