I appreciate the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville's intervention. The hon. member pointed out that the comments being made in the context of today's conversation would be relevant to a debate on the bill.
The hon. member makes a point of order with respect to the relevance aspect because the question that is before the House pertains to sending the bill to the standing committee before second reading. It is a relevant point of order because it does call into question the issue of relevance.
Having said that, we appreciate that in the House there is a great deal of liberty and freedom that is given to members to pose their arguments in support of the question. As members might imagine, it is difficult to reason those arguments without referring to the content of the bill. We run into the same kind of issue with respect to debates on time allocation, for example.
While the member for Terrebonne—Blainville is correct that the question is really about sending the bill to committee, I would suggest in this case that it is in order for members to refer to arguments and make commentary about the bill itself, provided that they, of course, circle back and make their arguments pertinent to the question that is before the House.
I note that the member for Brant has just begun his remarks. I am sure that in the course of his 10 minutes he will bring those arguments around to the question that is before the House.
The hon. member for Brant.