I just fail to understand why Mr. Siksay wouldn't support this. It gives their party clear advantage over what they've had in the past and clear advantage over the previous listings. I'm not sure why he would not be in favour of supporting this.
It seems to me that if Mr. Cullen were here, I would think--in his own interest, because he could have those two rounds--he would accept this. I think Mr. Siksay needs to take a look at it. It gives the NDP an advantage over what they had previously. It allows the Bloc to keep what they have. Nothing changes for the Bloc. And the Liberals, as Mr. Trost so clearly pointed out, do not have the same number of seats they had in the past.
Now, Mr. Chair, I want to go through this, because I think it's important that we talk about this order for a little while. Actually, let's take a look at what should happen here. I think the opposition might be interested in this.
If we have a two-hour meeting with two presentations, we're down to an hour and 40 minutes. The way the questioning should be split, according to the numbers in the House, is that the government should have 46 minutes of that 100 minutes, the Liberals should have 25 minutes, the Bloc should have 16 minutes, and the NDP should have 12. If you take a look at what we're offering here, the NDP is clearly ahead of that. The benefit for them in this situation...and the Bloc keeps what they have.
The Liberals realistically have to take a cut in the time they would expect to have, because they've taken that cut at the poll. The people of Canada made the decision that they did not want Liberals to be dominating committees when they made the decision to vote out....
How many were voted out, Mr. Trost, 25 or 26?
So the people of Canada have spoken, and as I think Mr. Allen pointed out earlier, this is an issue of parliamentary privilege. Those of us who have been given additional seats should be able to--