I agree with the principle behind what Mr. Bigras said. He was appealing to this committee to look for fairness, and I think that is something we should try to adopt.
The concept of every member having an opportunity to speak once, before any member is given a second opportunity, is what we're striving for. Unfortunately, Mr. Siksay's amendment would actually give a disproportionate voice to all the opposition members. Under his proposal, three Liberals would have the opportunity to speak five times in total, yet five Conservatives would only have the opportunity to speak four times. That's what's really changing here.
What Mr. Anderson is proposing gives even more weight to what the opposition has to say, because under his proposal the opposition would have six slots to speak before everything repeats itself, versus only five slots for the government. So if you look at what is being proposed, the opposition would be given more time than the government.
If the point Mr. Bains is trying to make is that we would never get to the fourth round, that's all the more evidence that Conservative members would be shortchanged and prevented from having the opportunity to speak, while an NDP member would have the opportunity to speak twice.
So let's pursue the principle of fairness that Mr. Bigras is proposing and try to find a solution that treats people equally, as opposed to providing a disproportionate voice to some members or some parties.