Thank you, Chair.
Actually, I would like to bring up perhaps a follow-up on a few of the points just made by Mr. Easter, because I think this strikes at the essence of this motion. What is the urgency? This is a question that we asked before. Is it important? Yes. It's important. Every MP sitting around this table realizes that this type of issue, this particular issue, is important. But we don't understand the urgency and why, as I was mentioning during my point of order, everything has to be cast aside, or why special rules seem to be in effect for this particular motion.
The reason I put it in that framework is that we as a committee are studying biotechnology. It's a comprehensive study. We've had witnesses come in front of committee. We've had the committee travel to actually speak to the agricultural sector, and speak to the research and development sector, to have a better understanding of biotechnology, of how biotechnology is affecting and impacting the agricultural sector, of the advantages and disadvantages.
We've been conducting this study and we're not done. There are more witnesses who should be coming in front of the committee. We know there are more witnesses who should be coming in front of committee, and for some reason we're not getting around to it.
One would say, oh, this is more urgent than the study. But the point I'm making, Chair, is that this is part of the study. This motion that we see here is part of the study. We should be including it as part of the study, not breaking it out.
Why don't we all break out our pet motions from the study? Instead of having a study and having a final report, we could have 15 individual, fragmented pet motions--