This does go to my motion for you to rule this out of order, in my point of order, because, as you explained from page 1052--I will quote you, Mr. Chairman--“the motion is not a substantive motion”. That is what you said.
I refer you to page 1055, where it talks about substantive motions:
Independent proposals, divided into two types:
2. Resolution: motion in which the committee expresses its opinion on a specific matter.
That, sir, is a substantive motion. Therefore, as it says:
A member of a committee may move a motion at any time in the normal course of a meeting, provided that...the motion is not a substantive motion....
And sir, I do, as O'Brien and Bosc....
I'll wait until you're finished talking to the clerk, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chair, perhaps I could finish. Clearly in O'Brien and Bosc, on page 1047, it does give you the latitude to take under consideration practice that is typical practice of the committee. I think this is very important.
Mr. Easter, I don't want to get into the politics of this. I do think this is very important to parliamentary privilege.
My privileges as a member of Parliament, Mr. Richards' privileges, even Mr. Valeriote's, Mr. Bellavance's, and Mr. Atamanenko's privileges--even if they agree, they are giving up their privileges as a member of Parliament, and that supercedes anything we do here for political parties. That is why I do urge you to consider page 1047 and the practices.
That's not saying that Mr. Easter can't get to this very quickly, but he has to pass over these other motions.
That is the only thing I would bring forward to you, sir. I will respect your ruling. I do regret that I didn't have this information for you on the day on which we initially talked about it.
Thank you.