I sat in that 41st Parliament. Let's just say that it was part of my living experience with respect to some of these aspects. I've found that at least in most aspects—maybe not in the last few months, but certainly in large part—we've tried to be far more open in terms of our approach and to allow for more fulsome debate.
I don't really have a critical question left with respect to any of the other elements, but I do want to note an example this past week with regard to the New Democratic Party. One of the opposition motions that had been tabled in the House dealt with changes to the Standing Orders, and yet there was complaining about the fact that we shouldn't be able to move a motion to change the Standing Orders without consent from this particular committee. I found there was a little bit of an ideological disconnect taking place this week.
Do you have any other further thoughts on what you think might change the actual approach and tone of the House? One of the other things you ultimately did when you issued your second letter, after it was clear that the filibuster would go on indefinitely if we didn't change tactics, was indicate that we unfortunately would have to use more time allocation motions. Unfortunately, that has had to take place. Those are, of course, the rules that we have at the moment in terms of advancing the government's legislation. Is there another way in which we could do this without the necessity of that particular process? I'm like everyone else; I find it unfortunate that this is the mechanism we have to use, but it's the only mechanism the government has if there is a complete stalemate between the political parties.