It's not.
Chair, I have the floor on a point of order. The point of order is that we have a well-established tradition, and it's something that we've reinforced time and time again in terms of how it is that we actually deal with motions.
I actually find the approach that Mr. Easter is taking is somewhat disrespectful to the committee. Why do we try to work together to establish well-agreed-to principles if we're going to cast aside those principles? It doesn't make any sense to me.
For example, Chair, the first motion that's in front of the committee right now belongs to Wayne Easter. So Wayne Easter can remove that from the list. In fact, he could have removed it from the list--it's somewhat dated--a long time ago, but he did not remove it from the list. He can do that today, though. If he decides, in order to save time, in order to get to motion number 16 first, he will remove his motion one, he can either continue to have it tabled, meaning that we'll come back to it at a later time, or, as you well know, he can actually remove his motion, and that's it. It's over with. The committee doesn't have to deal with it.
It's the same with motion two. Who does that belong to? Wayne Easter. Wayne Easter can remove that motion from the list or he can table it, meaning that we'll get back to this at a later time.
Who does motion three belong to? Wayne Easter. It's the same concept; Mr. Easter is sitting on the first three motions. In fact, most of those are very dated. They shouldn't actually be there, but Mr. Easter has decided to leave them in play, so to speak, for the committee. He's right that he could have moved on them at any time up until today, but he can also dispose of them in a heartbeat.
Monsieur Bellavance owns the fourth motion on specified risk materials. We can either debate his motion today or he can actually withdraw it or he can table it another time.
Chair, we have Alex Atamanenko sitting on motion five. Wayne Easter has, again, motion six. Wayne Easter has motion seven.
As I work through the list, Chair, we have Wayne Easter, motion eight; Wayne Easter, motion nine. Number 10 is by Randy Hoback; Francis Valeriote has number 11; and Blake Richards has number 12.
The point is, Chair, that most of the motions actually rest with the opposition right now, and my point is that we should continue in the same tradition that we've always had, which is deal with the first motions first. If they want to save time then they should remove them from the agenda, and the committee can then move to the next motion and then to the next motion in an orderly fashion.
As I just pointed out, out of the first nine motions, all nine belong to the opposition. So if they're united in their approach in wanting to advance this quickly, then remove those from the table; they should have done it a long time ago. As I said, a lot of these are dated. Their relevance has passed, but for some reason the opposition has kept these motions in front of committee.
So my recommendation, Chair, is that this committee proceed in the way in which it has always proceeded, which is that first motions are dealt with first.