Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am speaking against the motion that is before us today. I believe that what is before the committee is the unamended motion as it was originally moved.
With that understanding, we've heard a lot today about private members' business. I just want to say that I have a lot of respect for my honourable colleague across the way, Mr. Shory, and for private members' business, but there is a process in place for private members' business.
As a matter of fact, when it came to first and second reading, I stood in the House and supported Mr. Shory's bill going to committee stage, where we did have amendments that we would have wanted to make to it. The reason we're here debating an extension is that the amendments brought forward by the government were ruled out of scope. It's because of that ruling we are here today.
When it comes to private members' business, Mr. Shory's bill can actually be, and will be deemed to be, reported on June 21, and he will get his day in court. There will be that debate, which will happen in the House of Commons.
Therefore, I want to be very, very clear that the opposition is doing nothing here to circumvent private members' business. As a matter of fact, it's the fact that it is a private member's bill....
Just to review, Mr. Chair, as we know, it's only backbenchers and the opposition who can bring forward private members' bills, not parliamentary secretaries, according to the parliamentary rules, and certainly not ministers, the cabinet. If the cabinet or a parliamentary secretary have significant legislation, there's a way to bring it forward. It's called government orders. They can bring forward a government bill.
I can assure them that this opposition would be more than willing to work with them on government legislation to address issues of national security and of terrorism in a very fulsome way. At no time does the opposition or anybody—