Perhaps we could propose a subamendment. That's legal. If it's legal, why shake your head? Excuse me, but it's my right. If it's right, it's right.
Actually, I am looking at the third round, and I would agree with it. For example, in the third round, the speaking order could be: Conservatives, NDP, then Conservatives and, since the Liberals would not speak in the third round, in the fifth round, we could go back to: Conservatives, NDP, Liberals. Perhaps the order for the fifth round could be: NDP, Conservatives, Liberals. Actually, it's rare—I have never seen it before, where a party speaks twice in a row. We simply need to reverse it. This is going to be similar, but it's fair so that we don't have two in a row. In the third round, the order could be: Conservatives, NDP, Conservatives; then, it would be: NDP, Conservatives, Liberals. It's just to alternate, instead of having the same party speak twice in a row, which we don't normally do.