For what it's worth, I've seen different patterns over the years that I've been here, but I do remember way back in 1993 when I first came here—well, I guess we didn't start committee meetings until 1994—there were a few committees that I substituted on or attended where they actually just went back and forth all the time. It was opposition—and always the opposition started. I remember that, because in the finance committee I was the point guy for our party, so whenever there were witnesses I had to really work because I had the first opportunity for questions. I had to listen, unlike some other members who were reading the paper, and then I asked the first question. Then it went to the government, and then back to the opposition, and always back and forth, with a rotation between the members. Of course, on the government side, they could choose whoever they wanted to take their slot when it came. They made that arrangement among themselves.
It's a little more difficult on the opposition side, where you have the different parties and there would have to be some way of allocating those. My suggestion would be to have it in proportion to the number of members on the committee. Basically what would happen is you'd all get an equal share as members of Parliament, and I think that's good. Committees ought to work that way. There's a certain amount of partisanship that's unavoidable, but at the same time in committee work we do really try, as members of Parliament, to do what's good for the country and for our constituents and for the issues the committee is seized with.
So that's what I would recommend—as an outsider here today, a substitute for Mr. Keddy. That was my experience and it worked very well.
Thank you.