Oh, well, it's experience. I've been in this chair and on this committee long enough to know what's controversial and what's not, and oftentimes having further questions in rotation is controversial. Usually, the opposition has to make an argument that the government accepts that there is merit in going further. To do it in the absence of that, I'm just pointing out, does create a bit of a precedent that, in the future to make that motion, there's not a requirement on the opposition to be making a case as to why. It was just a matter of the lead of the government benches that said “I've got another member who would like to question”, and that's all it takes.
In the future, you can expect that there will be comparable motions that come where we don't have that circumstance. That's all I'm pointing out. I just want it noted because of experience.
Is there any further discussion or further debate? I'm hearing none.
Mr. Saxton.