The intent of the motion was to simply list in order so that nobody lost a turn, and to make it clear how the whole thing would flow--not to be political, partisan, or whatever. I understand what Mr. Ménard is saying, but there's nothing intended in that.
The only thing is that when you look at the original statement in the routine motion that was presented to us, I don't think the subsequent rounds are listed particularly well. What we were trying to do was just clarify....
It is obvious how we would go in the first rounds, but when you look at the subsequent rounds, do you just go down the table or do you alternate by party? So we were trying to say that we will alternate by party so that everybody gets a chance.
If you take number 6 the way it's written, I would agree that the opposition parties would all go first and we would go fourth. But then in subsequent rounds, perhaps you could just start and go down. I'm not saying anybody would, but we were just trying to make it clear how it would go.