Of course.
In all fairness, that was not my motion. That was Frank's motion, which I supported. I think what Frank was up against, if memory serves correctly, was that we were right at the end of a Parliament and it was going to be hard for him to get it through. I think that was what was driving him. Anybody who's ever had a private member's motion or bill that comes up toward the end of a Parliament knows that feeling. I have sympathy for what he was trying to do.
I think that in practice, he was biting off a very large chunk and it would have been difficult to deal with it all. To give the proper.... With something like setting up a parallel chamber, you really have to sit down and look at the other places that have done it—the Australians and British—and see how well what they proposed works. That was not the only subject matter. There were a number of other things he had in there.
The motion that I proposed that dealt with the election of the Speaker was a narrower topic. It was using the preferential ballot for electing the Speaker. Initially, I had this idea that we would put this forward, it would be debated and then the House would adopt it. It was in the process that wiser heads than my own directed and said that this really ought to go to the procedure and House affairs committee. In retrospect, they were 100% right. It was helpful to see what other jurisdictions had done. We were not the first ones to try this. The British do it in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords as well. That was very informative and useful.