It's a bit of a problem, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how we'd do it except by....
I've thought a lot about this, Paul. If you change it, the risk you run is that you end up spending your entire meetings talking about motions and getting nowhere, and not doing the substantive work, which, from my brief experience on the committee, we've been pretty good at doing. We've actually covered a lot of ground.
On the other hand, there is a problem. I've experienced that frustration; you have a motion that you think is really important and then we don't get to it. I'd ask the clerk about the list of motions we had from the last Parliament that we didn't get to. We never got to discuss them because we ran out of time every time.
I actually don't think there's a solution. I think all you can do is hope that where there's a deep feeling that we have to get at something, and it's a bit of an urgent matter, we try to work it out. But I think our real discussion has to be following the meeting of the committee, where we put in our proposals for what we want to do this session and try to anticipate some of the issues that we know are going to be coming up, and then say, “Okay, how are we going to handle these things?” I think the advantage of having this is that we're able to focus our attention on the issues that we've all agreed have to be done, and we don't end up getting caught by one party or another trying to move a gazillion motions to get us to fill up the schedule.
So it's not an easy choice, but I guess my sense would be that we would do the 15 minutes, and we'll just have to see how it goes. If it doesn't end up working, we can fight about it at some point and ask what all the issues are that we haven't been able to deal with and see if we can work it out. But I don't think there's a solution that doesn't create more problems.