Mr. Chair, some information is missing, something from what Mr. Galipeau said. We will very likely find it in the transcript. At the request of Mr. Julian, who was replacing Ms. Michaud, Mr. Galipeau said that he had intended to make a second proposal, on further to his resolution, which is written above.
He had intended to propose an order for the speaking turns in which the third party—so, the Liberal party—could speak only once during the entire testimony. I am against that. I think that it is important that the committee members be aware that this was to come. Mr. Julian's motion was put forward in reaction to what Mr. Galipeau recommended presenting, if his first motion had been adopted.
When Mr. Julian's resolution was rejected, I presented this one for form's sake. That is the word I used then. Mr. Chair, I don't know if this morning we want to start a discussion that could go on for two hours with no outcome. After our meeting last week, I suggested that we refer this question to the steering committee, which has already been set up, to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone, if possible. I would like to know if the committee is interested in proceeding this way. We might be able to avoid a prolonged debate.
I would like to let the committee know about something else. Ms. Foote, the whip for the Liberal Party, intends to raise this matter this afternoon during the meeting of the House leaders and whips. Three or four committees have already established their sequences, and no two are the same. We risk finding ourselves in a somewhat bizarre situation at times.
I would like to know whether the chair, Mr. Chong, would like to proceed this way. Are we simply going to get into the heart of the debate and see what happens?
In passing, I would like to take the opportunity on this first day of summer to wish everyone a happy summer.