Excuse me, sir.
Colleagues, this is important. Everyone knows the motion we're dealing with. And it is very much in order for members to give some examples of the kinds of questions and generally why they feel those are important questions. But I think if it comes to a point where they in fact start to get into the argument of that in its full context, that's going beyond the motion. So I accept that examples are fine, but to start doing debate on each of those, as if they had been put and you're presenting the case, I think, is beyond the scope of the motion before us.
So I would ask members if they want to suggest some examples of questions, it's fine to identify them and to indicate the nature of the relevance, but not to argue them, please. Okay? Is that acceptable?
Mr. Poilievre, please continue.