I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Nater was mentioning the Speaker. I know there were a lot of things in the discussion paper before us that brought the motion on. The motion, obviously, was brought on and we're seeking to try to amend that now. I think a lot of it has been talked about, the process, and that's the important part that we're dealing with here in the motion. Certainly the amendment to reach consensus is a key part of that. Also, there has been some discussion around obviously the topics and the subject matter that have been put forward for the discussion and the discussion paper that the government House leader brought forward. Some of them have had a fair bit of discussion during the course of this meeting. I always want to say “meetings”, but it's actually one meeting that we're still on here from two and a half weeks ago when we started this meeting; and we're still on that day, apparently?
One thing we haven't heard a lot of discussion about was this idea of the Speaker having the ability to make a determination about whether a bill is an omnibus bill and how one would break that bill up if it is, and these kinds of things. I would suspect the Speaker would see it as having the imposition to do so. That would be a pretty difficult proposition for the Speaker. When I heard Mr. Nater mention it, I thought maybe he might have some thoughts on that. I would sure love to hear them. He has a very learned opinion, obviously a great amount of knowledge on these matters, with his background at university. I'd be really curious to hear his perspective on that and if he could enlighten the committee on that. I don't want to interrupt where he was going in his train of thought, but maybe if it's now or at some point he would be willing to do that, I would certainly appreciate it.