To continue the theme that I think we have going on this side, we are trying to find balance. We're trying to accommodate as many of the different points of view as I think are reasonable while holding to parliamentary tradition and trying new things.
This certainly gives everybody an opportunity to speak. It maintains a balance in speaking times. It maintains a balance in that no party speaks twice in a row. It maintains a balance at the end. Should the time be cut short, it's true that two of the final three will be the governing party, but two of the final four will also be the opposition. That's balance.
Maybe later on, once we've dealt with things like this, we might decide that if we're running out of time, for balance we'd actually cut things short at those final four speakers rather than at the final three, just to make it fair. That's something we can look at down the road, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Again, we're looking at the way this is laid out. We're looking at 34 minutes for the governing party, 22 minutes for the official opposition, and 12 minutes for the third party. If you add the two opposition parties together, it's 34 minutes. That's a balance in speaking time between the governing party and the opposition parties, but it does reflect, by comparison, that the governing party has 12 minutes more than....Everything that the third party has, the government has over and above what the official opposition has in speaking time. That reflects the fact that there are six people sitting opposite.
We'd all certainly like to move on, but that's not going to happen unless there's at least one vote on the other side of the floor. We have a consensus on this side, so hopefully we won't be held back for much longer.