To build on what Mr. Van Kesteren was saying and to take into account what Mr. McTeague was saying, the reality is that a lot of our meetings are the one to one. What happens with that scenario is we go through round one and round two, maybe, and then the witnesses go. Then the next round comes in, and we do the witnesses and they get their opening statements, and then we go through round one and round two again.
With those scenarios, and we've had quite a lot of them, if you look at the record to see how much Mr. Arthur actually had the opportunity to speak, it was a lot less than it would be if we always had two-hour meetings.
So if the idea here, to be fair...and again, as Madam Brunelle was saying, as committees we're masters of our own destiny, and Mr. Arthur is a full member of this committee. He should be treated as such, and we should allow some type of institutionalization that he does have recognition and the ability to speak and add to this committee, just like any other member of the committee.
That is the idea of the change. We don't see any other way of actually making sure that he gets the chance to speak than to just outline it in the rounds. Then there won't be that argument back and forth. It could be any party saying...the Conservatives or the Liberals...you can't give your speaking spot to somebody else.