Mr. Chairman, this motion was designed to ensure that, as Mr. Carrier has said, every single member has an opportunity to speak. It wasn't so that the party would be guaranteed a particular speaking order; that's already handled by the first round. After that, it's all members of the committee. So only those members who have not spoken are the ones this amendment is designed to protect.
What I can derive from Mr. Masse's concern, and if we institutionalize his suggestion, is that it would be that then, in a subsequent round, assuming there is time or that other members do not want to speak, we actually invert the order of questioning and the NDP get the first next official round. I think I would have difficulty with that, not because I don't want them to speak but because my recollection of the way this committee has worked is that we don't always fill every particular spot, and the NDP member on this committee prior to today has always been ready to fill whatever vacancy was available. I think the chair, in using his discretion, ensured that would take place—in other words, that there would be protection for the member's interest.
But I'm not sure we need to institutionalize the partisan aspect of the next round. This committee works well when the chairman is allowed the discretion of saying, “Okay, we have 10 minutes to go, and I have five people who want to speak. I'm going to give everybody a chance to speak again, and it's two minutes each,” as opposed picking two people and that's it.
So I prefer the flexibility that has been brought in, because it addresses members and not parties.