There are a number of points I want to make before I get into the substance.
First of all, I realize and respect the decision you made as the chair. Also, you were overruled, then we had to go back and debate the previous question. What I am still struggling with is that the rules that exist in this House, they exist for reasons. When I look at page 1056, under “Amendments”, it says:
...there is no limit on the number of amendments that may be moved; however, only one amendment and one subamendment may be considered by a committee at one time.
So your ruling that there could be no further amendments, I find really confusing.
The other one is:
Debate on the main motion is suspended, and the amendment is debated until it has been decided. Debate on the main motion then resumes, whether or not it has been amended.
Those are the rules.
I know the government has a majority, and it has used its majority like a hammer in the House to set time allocations. But right here at this committee, it is using its majority to go way beyond what I believe are all the rules we have around parliamentarian privileges to be able to speak. There is no time limit or number of times a person can speak to a motion in committee.
I feel, with the chair's ruling, what he has said is that the question is not only on the amendment, but the question is going to be put on the whole motion straight after the amendment without any debate. In that process, I have to agree with my colleague that my privilege—