Well, good. I'll try to be very relevant now, because I was speaking about the role of this committee.
Since it will be the role of this committee to vote on the issue at hand, at some point, it will be up to this committee to determine whether the work of the subcommittee was an absolute waste of time, and thus whether I could have been off, doing some other good work in this House, or whether the subcommittee—and not only me, as chair of the subcommittee, but also the other members of this committee who sit on that committee—were actually doing relevant work and doing it the way they were supposed to do it.
Earlier in my dissertation today, I brought up the rules and regulations, which I thought were very relevant because we really are trying to determine the non-votability of a piece of legislation. This committee will need, at some point, to determine whether the report from the subcommittee is either accepted or not accepted. In fact, you'll say, hey, subcommittee, you did your work; or, we don't need you at all, and we'll just stay as a big committee and do all the work in the future.
If that's what you're saying, we may have trouble moving other pieces of private members' business forward, because the subcommittee, of course, would say to itself, what is our relevance? Why are we here? Why does the subcommittee have to meet at another time than this committee? Why does that subcommittee need to meet at all if in fact the committee of the whole, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, actually gets together and overturns the subcommittee's decision? Why, in fact, would the subcommittee on private members' business of this committee even meet?