This is based on the fact that there's no perfect formula for sharing time. There is a domino effect with this issue. If we change anything, if there has been no prior discussion each one of the political parties, it will be difficult to satisfy everyone. The current formula is not perfect, but it is acceptable, in light of how it's been used in the past. This is why I am more in favour of maintaining the status quo.
On the other hand, I would add, as Mr. Weston has just stated that, I've had several opportunities to preside over question period, etc. It's true that a chronometer is used, but some members were able to benefit from one or two additional minutes.
Therefore, the chair must be granted discretion. It seems that our native New Brunswicker, Mr. Weston, has proven himself to be flexible. We simply have to frame this formula, which is not perfect, I concede, but we need some sort of guiding principle. I think that the 10, 7, 5, and 10 minutes for the government party formula, and five minutes for each party during the second round, is fine. What is left is deciding how much discretion we want to leave the chair, which we can decide on once we put things into practice. He looks like a nice guy, I don't think there should be any problems.
I wish to extend to him my congratulations and assure him of my full cooperation so that our work here is as positive as possible. There's a way to deal with our friend Peter's perseverance, who invariably asks for more time. The current format is balanced, even though it would appear difficult to accept in certain situations. Despite this, I think it has served us relatively well in past Parliaments.
For that reason, I believe that we should keep the status quo.