I have just one more question. It's about convention because the convention has always been that committees are masters of their own destiny. We've heard the Speaker say it many times when there has been a bit of a problem at committee and somebody tries to refer it to the Speaker under a point of order, and he replies that when that committee decides it has an issue and reports back to the House, then he could act because the committees are masters of their own domain, if you will. We've always thought that way too. We'd rather solve it here at the committee table than in the House.
By giving the House the authority to elect the Speaker, are we giving up some of the convention that committees are masters of their own destiny? In the big House you've now chosen the chair for those committees. I think we're giving away a bit of parliamentary tradition and the convention that committees are masters of their own destiny by choosing the chair someplace else.