Mr. Christopherson's points are good and raise some thoughts that had not occurred to me.
But in response to Mr. Chan, first of all, I think the constraints you suggest, particularly with regard to the priority given to other items, are very sensible. I would prefer two hours to one hour, but I recognize that you guys have the majority. We can't push through a motion that you're not going to agree with.
I'll just make this observation with regard to a one-hour appearance. I really don't think it would be helpful to us, or to the minister for that matter, to discuss her discussion paper. Most of those items have been taken off the agenda. She has five items she wants to move forward on, and I would suggest we stick to those five. We should actually suggest another venue, one of going back to party caucuses, in relation to the issue of Friday sittings and other things, for example, the programming motion, that she said she doesn't want to move forward on. Why discuss that when we have only 60 minutes? With respect to the five items she has on her agenda now, that's enough meat. I guarantee that we'll be able to discuss those for an hour.
Of course, I'm always interested in asking questions, but to some degree I see this as a chance to put forward suggestions, which she doesn't have to take but I think they're generally helpful suggestions. I suppose others would have to editorialize after the fact and see whether I was mistaken on that. But it's a chance to put some ideas into her head prior to coming up with this. I would be very surprised if she has these things prewritten and worked out right now. I think they're in the process of designing them in her office, and I suspect input would be useful to her in delivering her job conscientiously.
That's all I wanted to say about that.
One further thought, though, is that when we move on to other items, it would also be helpful to get some idea of what process the government would like to use for moving forward with other non-platform standing order changes going into the remaining two years of this Parliament. That would be helpful. It doesn't have to come from her at that time, but she might want to add that to her remarks.