On a point of order, I would like to do a twofold thing here. I would challenge the chair's ruling. I think this is out of order. This is a very specific standing order, 106(4). In no way do I mean this to be personal, mean, or vicious to my friend Joe Preston, but I would challenge the chair's ruling. I would also point out that I have not heard one member of any party who is hostile to the intent of dealing with this. I am challenging the chair's ruling merely as regards how we order things. I think some of my colleagues have talked about some of the colourful discourses we've had in the past. Some people might want to characterize them as filibusters. I would hate to think that this would happen regarding such an important issue and such a specific item as the one we've come to discuss today. However, the motion before us does not.... I see a timeline here.
On September 10th, 2007. See this statement in context.