Thank you, Chair.
The first thing is that I'm not sure why you're limiting the speakers list on this, because normally, out of respect for members, if members have a point of view they want to expound upon, they need to be given that opportunity. Limiting debate and limiting a list serves no purpose, if we're to have full and open debate.
I would ask you to revisit that, because there are other MPs.... For example, Mr. Richards has a motion that sits in front of Mr. Easter's motion, and we haven't heard from Mr. Richards yet about whether he would be willing to let his motion slide and why he feels that it should slide or not slide. How does he feel about it? He will be directly impacted by your ruling.
What's going to happen here, Chair, is that you're going to make a ruling. If you rule in favour of the fact that we're going to actually respect the precedent of this committee, which is that we follow motions in the order in which they are presented, then we'll challenge your ruling and overturn it. That's what's going to happen. Then Mr. Richards, who actually has a motion that's sitting in front of Mr. Easter's, will not have an opportunity to explain what his position is on this. And I just don't think that's right.
I actually think that other members who want to participate in the debate today should be able to participate in this debate. I see no useful purpose in cutting members off because Mr. Easter feels that he has an urgent priority. That's his opinion. I think what we've heard from my colleagues, Chair, is that it is only his opinion.
There have been many times on this committee when a member's had an opinion, and we've had fulsome debate on that opinion and have not cut people off just because a member feels that it's urgent or is in his best interest.