Somebody's going to go away disappointed from this afternoon and, unfortunately, I'm the one who has to make the call, it appears. I'm prepared to do that.
Chair, I don't think the argument of direct correlation between number of seats and speaking time is a valid argument. We allocate speaking time and other opportunities for participation in very different kinds of processes around this institution in many different ways. We certainly don't, for instance, allocate questions in question period according to the number of seats. The Conservative Party doesn't get their full share of questions in question period in that kind of circumstance.
That being said, even our number of seats doesn't really represent the wishes of the Canadian people, because we know that the percentage of the popular vote doesn't represent the number of seats that parties win in Parliament.
I think all of those arguments are difficult ones and fail. However, there has to be a way out of the impasse, and I think the way to do that is to support Mr. Allen's amendment. That's a compromise I can certainly live with. Clearly, there is an advantage for the New Democrat even though that speaking position is the last one in the round and would often be difficult to get to, but I am persuaded that there should be an opportunity for each member of the committee to find time in the full rotation, in the first and second rounds. I am persuaded by that argument and will support Mr. Allen's subamendment.