I think there are features of both that could be seen as advantageous, depending on how we.... As I stressed in my remarks, this comes down to what we think will work best. I agree with taking a look at this in a mature and less partisan fashion, because you're essentially trying to innovate and improve the processes that serve not only parliamentarians but, through them, the public as well. I think this is where the parallel chambers have worked successfully, and certainly in the case of Westminster Hall with the addition of their debates. They have debates on a number of issues that would never be seen here other than the rare take-note debates that we have in the chamber.
I agree with your point, Mr. Simms, with regard to looking at the U.K. example. They used a modernization committee to take up consideration of just that issue. They were able to bring forward some ideas in fairly precise detail.
On the other point you mentioned with regard to debates and taking the issues of governmental business for additional comment, the chambers do use a form of what we would consider adjournment debates. This is where members of the government and opposition are both present, and there's an opportunity for opposition members to then pose questions. You can have this exchange in the parallel chamber. Let's face it: adjournment proceedings are highly subscribed. Quite often there isn't the time to permit them all.
There are a number of different options. This is why, as opposed to landing on a firm position as to what it should be and what it should entail, I think we should take a good look at some of these advantages, and what we can agree upon we could move forward with.