That's not the main motivation, but that is potentially a benefit.
In my concluding speech, my five-minute response at the end of the debate on this motion, I did a little math, and let me just repeat what I said. Following up on my colleague the parliamentary secretary's comments about the length of balloting, I took a moment to do a little math. He pointed out that, on average, seven hours had been consumed electing a Speaker in each of the Parliaments since the procedure was introduced back in the eighties. Seven hours times 308 members equals 2,156 hours. In case members are wondering, a person working 40 hours a week all year long, with no holidays, would work fewer hours than that. Essentially this is an entire year of work gone. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we return to the worst-case scenario, 12 hours of voting—because that's what it was in 1986—in the next Parliament, when there will be 338 members, math dictates that we would spend 4,056 hours doing this, which is about two years' work.
You get an idea. There is a real cost there. On the other hand, there is a benefit as well; we do get to know each other.
My primary motivation here is to try to reduce the partisanship. Maybe a better way of putting it, because I think our last two Speakers have been excellent in this regard, is to preclude the possibility of partisanship re-emerging at any point. I think this system would tend to lead to, if you like, an inexorable cycle because it would be reinforced by the conventions, the widespread approval of the House, and therefore, it would become part of our culture that we expect the candidates to be those who are the least partisan individuals, the most scholarly in their approach to the rules, and have the kinds of qualifications one would expect in a person whose primary role is adjudication.
I must add something else. We've done well in this regard with our last two Speakers, so perhaps I'm undercutting myself, but someone who has a bit of a sense of humour helps a lot.