Mr. Chairman, I was not sure whether Mr. Preston was filibustering or not. I listened to him, it was interesting. However, when he gave the example of two feathers, I found it difficult to see its relevance.
When we were studying the referendum Clarity Bill that prevented Quebec from choosing its own destiny, a bill that was tabled by Mr. Dion when he was a minister, I launched a filibuster that lasted five hours and 45 minutes. Time and time again, members from all parties would refer to subsection 101(2) of the Standing Orders, whereby “speeches in Committees of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration”. Marleau-Montpetit, on page 780, refers to the rule of relevance: “Speeches in a committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. If a member's speech is not relevant to the debate, the Chair is empowered to call the member to order and if necessary, warn that he or she risks being reported to the House”. The member could lose his or her right to speak.
Mr. Chairman, since I have absolute faith in you, I am convinced that you will strictly enforce subsection 101(2) of the Standing Orders and that you will make sure that the last minute of Mr. Preston's speech be relevant. In any case, I am certain that he is almost through.