I know that you have been very lax and liberal with respect to relevance. However, we are on a subamendment to the amendment to the motion, which very specifically does two things. It deletes a reference to the completion of a study and it furthers the thing. I have no idea how anyone on this committee, in this room or in this world could possibly find relevance between what the honourable member is saying and the subamendment that is before us at this time.
I know that you give lots of latitude on that. However, I think there is some time when you can rule it out of order and either ask the member to move on and speak to the subamendment or actually end the member's time. It has been done by some chairs at times, notably me, to say it's time to move on. That can be done and I think that's very important because I think we want to show that Parliament is relevant. If Parliament is not relevant because a conversation is completely irrelevant, then we don't have that ability.
I know you have latitude to do that, but I would hope you'd at least remind the member to try to focus on the subamendment, which Mr. Bergeron has presented in good faith, to attempt to move this committee from something that has gone on from May 16 until now.
As you know, we'll be supporting that subamendment if we ever get it to be voted on.