I think that model would be difficult to work with in question period because of the set-up of the debate, and I also think the opposition has raised some legitimate concerns about the government trying to use up as much time as possible in order to avoid additional questions. So I think whatever system's in place has to ensure that there's some sort of reciprocity between the amount of time for a question and the amount of time the Speaker gives for the answer, so that you don't get this situation where the government is just dragging out the answers in order to chew up time.
In terms of the more informal dialogue, I think you would get more substantive questions in the system that I'm proposing, because if you allow backbench members the opportunity to ask questions driven by the concerns they have from their constituents without having to petition their respective party to ask that question, you're going to get a very different style of question that's driven by a very different concern. So I think that will change the tone of the place.
Besides, in addition, I should add, if the backbench members are afforded that right in the second half of question period, they will be a lot more attentive in the first half, because if they act out of hand in the first half, Speaker Milliken is not going to recognize them in the second half. So there's a bit of a carrot there for members to be attentive and to pay attention because they know at around 2:40 or 2:45 they have a chance to ask a question. If they've been acting unruly, the Speaker won't recognize them.