You know, I can understand there's goodwill in the air, lots of bonhomie and goodwill, but we do have to have some agreed-upon structure. I've always thought we should have strict rules and loose enforcement of the rules, just so that there are rules and structure to fall back on in case things fall apart in terms of the goodwill.
I would point out that in the first round what's contemplated, or past practice, favours the other parties disproportionately. Looking back to the origins of the whole committee structure, it's an opportunity for the opposition parties, I believe, to get down to the truth. Often the government knows the truth. They're the government; they have access to all the books, access to information. We're trying to beaver our way through the smokescreens to get to the bottom of substance from the witnesses. This is why most other committees have the opposition parties asking questions first and then the government.
So I would suggest that the first round should be the official opposition, the Bloc, the NDP, and then the government, and cap it off there.
I think the really weighted part is in the second round here, because listen to this, Mr. Chairman: it goes Liberal, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc, and then the NDP. Well, we're packing it home with our lunch kits by then, because the witnesses are gone.
I won't accept that, Mr. Chairman. I don't think that's fair. In the interest of fairness, I think we should repeat the same order in the second round--official opposition, Bloc, NDP, and government--and keep doing that as many rounds as we can get in, with all the flexibility and discretion of the chair that you began your remarks with.
I would be a lot happier if the official structure said official opposition, Bloc, NDP, government for the first round, and do it again for the second round--and the third, if there's time.