I think it's entirely appropriate to vote in favour of an amendment and then vote against a motion as amended. Sometimes “not as bad” is better than “bad”.
I saw Conservatives—Mr. Brassard, as well as a number of others—do it in PROC recently, when we were going on about virtual voting. Conservatives clearly didn't want that, but they were okay with voting in favour of amendments that made things weaker, fully intending not to vote for the motion afterward.
It happens, then, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it either.
Just coming back to the point Mr. Kurek made, I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about what he wants to talk about, but it begs the question of why he withdrew his motion. His motion specifically was about this. Now we're debating something that is actually a genuine policy being brought forward by the NDP, and he would rather talk about what his motion was about during this discussion.
I'm confused with the discussion that's going on at the table today, but I digress.
Thank you, Madam Chair.