Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Chair, I have several questions here today. I'm at a loss to understand how we could have spent the last 25 minutes listening to opposition members question the government's tactics and question a filibuster, when for the last 25 minutes it has been the members of the opposition who have held the floor and have actually contributed to this filibuster we're debating here today.
That's not the only question I have. There have been many times over the last couple of years, since I've been a member of Parliament, when I've questioned the tactics of the opposition. Today is no different for me, in that sense.
Ms. Foote made some points that certainly speak to the concerns I had when we first started discussing this motion the other day. They certainly speak to why an amendment was brought forward, and I guess, even further, to why a subamendment was brought forward. Obviously, there are issues that are important for us. We see the issue brought forward by the Speaker as an issue that takes priority. Certainly, if this issue is being dealt with in another forum, I'm comfortable with that approach, giving us as a committee, as the Speaker said, the opportunity to deal with this issue that he considers important.
Going back to earlier in our discussions today, there were several interventions by other members who were speaking to relevance. I guess, for me, there is great relevance. It speaks to exactly what my concerns were the other day, when I talked about this original motion. I have a curious mind, and I try to understand why something has been brought forward and what the urgency is, especially in light of the fact that it's being dealt with in another forum. I try to understand that.
Then, when issues were brought forward today, people challenged the relevance of those issues. We talked about past situations and about how past governments have used opposition days to their advantage to try to railroad, if you want, legislation or limit debate or limit the opportunity for the opposition to bring forward their disappointment or concern about certain actions by the government. It's very relevant for me, being a relatively new member, not only of this committee but of the House of Commons. I don't have that past history to reference personally. I need to understand fully the implications and the impact of a decision of this committee with respect to this motion. It's not in my interest, as a member of Parliament, and it's not in the interest of Canadians whatsoever, for me to make a judgment or vote without having all the information available to me.
That's one of the things I raised the other day. I'd like to look at this. I'd like to understand it more clearly. Today this committee has gone no further in understanding this issue than we did the other day. Other than the interventions we've heard in debate today, which have been challenged as to their relevance, there has been no new information brought forward.
The only issue I have heard that speaks to the urgency is the timeframe mentioned in the motion. I believe, Mr. Chair, that the timeframe is December 10. We still have several days left, as Ms. Foote pointed out. Today is November 30. There are still ten days left. A lot can happen in ten days. Agreements can be reached. And I have no doubt in my mind that agreements will be reached. There have been many cases in the past when issues have gone to the eleventh hour and a decision has come forward.
There's a quote that says, “There's nothing like a hanging at noon to focus a mind at dawn.” I believe that's how it goes--something to that effect.