Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I echo the sentiments of my colleague. I thank the witnesses today for appearing and helping our endeavour into this really important legislation.
As Mr. Kurek was reading the words of his motion, I actually had a copy of a motion on December 13 that had been moved by Mr. Brassard in this very committee. It was word for word the exact same motion.
I know that in our House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 20, under “Format and Admissibility” of motions, it says:
A motion that is the same in substance as one already decided in the same session is inadmissible; however, a member may move a motion which, although similar, is sufficiently different as to constitute a new question.
I do see that the only difference between Mr. Kurek's motion as he's presented today and the previous one from Mr. Brassard is that there's a new section, (d), which just adds a timeline to the exact same substance.
Can I humbly request your ruling on this as to whether this motion is actually in order or not?