Chair, this is one of the first times I have spoken on this motion, and I do not think it is fair for a generalization to be made that we, the committee, have debated this point already. If an MP has not expressed himself on a particular point, he or she is allowed to do so. It's not caught under the net of the committee, such that if the committee has made a comment on this, no other MP can talk about it because it's not considered to be pertinent. That's ridiculous. Each MP is allowed to express themselves on this motion, which is exactly what I'm doing, and the fact that we, the committee in general, discussed the motion last meeting should not in any way constrain me. I wasn't part of that. I wasn't saying what I'm saying now.
I appreciate the latitude, Chair, thank you.
To go to Mr. Bellavance's point, I'm agreeing that the subject matter is pertinent. Of course, it's pertinent, it's part of our study on biotechnology; our witnesses have brought it up. No one's arguing that it's not pertinent, Chair. What we are discussing is why is it urgent. When we look at the biotechnology study, we've had people come in and they've spoken about biotechnology, the broader issue of biotechnology. We--