Thank you, Mr. Whalen. Again, I'm listening intently. I understand your frustration.
Let's be quite clear about this. We all know what's happening here. The opposition is using the procedural tactics that are at their availability. They are certainly within their right to do so. As one who has engaged in filibusters before, at one time going on for over eight and a half hours in committee, I'm intimately aware of how these things work and what the rules are from the chair.
There is, certainly you must admit, a connection between the proposal the minister has put forward and the motion put forward by the opposition, because they are interconnected. Because this motion is speaking to the fact of hearing witnesses dissect, if you will, the proposal by the minister and provide evidence to this committee whether or not the proposal is reasonable and should be acted upon, Mr. Clarke is referencing that.
To be able to say that you want him to be specific to just the motion is perhaps a little extreme, because if he strays beyond what the minister has said, or if he strays beyond commentary made by the parliamentary budget officer, or reference to any of the witnesses' observations, then I would agree with you that it's not relevant, but I haven't heard anything that strays too far yet.
Mr. Clarke.