Thanks.
I can see what Mr. Batters is doing. This particular complicated motion took us about three meetings to agree on in the last Parliament, and I know this is a new Parliament.
I'm going to respond to Ms. Gagnon first, who wanted to do two rounds in the formal order, whereas we agreed to only do one and then begin to alternate. The purpose of that was to make sure government members did get a turn.
I'm not willing to support the idea that everybody speaks once before somebody speaks twice, because the government has the power, and therefore, this is one place where the opposition parties often get a slight advantage in time. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as all the government members get into the discussion before the meeting is over.
This took a long time to work out, and to reduce the official opposition to seven minutes from the ten that we've had before, and that you had, and also to say that all members speak once before anybody speaks twice, would be quite a reversal of the traditions of all committees, not just this one.
So I'm speaking in support of the motion that is printed here. But, Mr. Chair, I'm finding the order rather odd, because it seems to me that you get a motion moved before you start looking at alternate things.