Fair enough. I just want to put out ideas that should provoke discussion about how we consider the role of private members. I'm not going to endorse any of these specifically. Perhaps an appropriate modification would be motions that do not include....
This is the curious thing about motions. In one sense you can think of motions as one of the less important things we do because they're not binding on the actions of government in terms of policy. On the other hand, if they involve an instruction to a committee or a change to the rules of the House, that is done through a motion. In some sense, that's one of the most important things we do because it impacts that substructure of democracy. If you were changing the number of hours allocated to certain kinds of bills or motions vis-à-vis private members' business, you might want to say that there would be certain distinctions between motions that made certain kinds of changes and didn't make certain kinds of changes or that did involve instructions to committee or didn't involve instructions to committee. Those are the kinds of distinctions that could be made.
There are certain kinds of recognition or commemorative motions that come forward that potentially could be dealt with in a single hour. That would create more of an opportunity to then proceed with more bills being brought forward. That's just one idea.
Here's another idea, and maybe this will get more support from Mr. Graham. What if we had a system in which all members of Parliament put forward a bill that they were interested in, and then in some secret ballot format, members of Parliament could choose a certain—