This motion takes away a little of the strength that we provided with the motion on the 48 hours' notice. By doing that, we decided that there is some degree of urgency. This motion allows it to be put at the end of a meeting. So the impact of the motion is possibly reduced. I understand the argument that, when witnesses are present, they must absolutely be dealt with first. Now we must have something on the other side of the scale that allows us to have enough discussion. We could try 30 minutes instead of 15. Say that a meeting is scheduled from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. We could have the half-hour from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Half an hour would mean less likelihood of avoiding the issue. That might be a possible compromise that would help us out of this situation. It is very frustrating to bring a motion forward and see that it is not going to be considered. The motion is important, we wait until the end of the meeting, and then we only have 15 minutes to consider it. We do not come to grips with the matter, and other things come up. Often, when we call witnesses, if we know in advance and if the rule is pretty clear, we can set the time aside. I find that, with 15 minutes, the frustration level gets a little high.
On February 2nd, 2009. See this statement in context.