With respect to the reduction of speeches from 40 minutes to 20 minutes, that was a recommendation made by the Lefebvre committee and the McGrath committee back in the eighties. The concern at that time wasn't just the length of speeches, but that there wasn't any back-and-forth, the very kind of thing Mr. Smith wants to see more of. The fact is that the reduction from 40 to 20 minutes was accompanied by the addition of a 10-minute question and comment period after every 20-minute speech, so even though it may still seem inadequate, we actually have more back-and-forth than we did with the 40-minute speeches, because there was no question and comment period whatsoever. Whether the speeches were read or spoken without notes, we just had one 40-minute speech after another with no opportunity for interaction.
So I would come to the defence somewhat of the 20-minute speeches, insofar as they came in a package with the question and comment period, which members have taken advantage of ever since.