The most recent standing order change was done by Mr. Reid in a narrow vote on a private member's motion, so it's a little bit rich to say this is always the way it's been done. It is not the way it's always been done, and it didn't ask for consent. It didn't even propose a motion for consent to get it through. Pick one. You can't have it both ways.
To Nick's point, I totally get it. Why are we filibustering at this point in the process? Have the conversation. We cannot report this back to the House, anything, without a report, which requires a vote from the committee. The filibuster belongs at the end of the study. It belongs after we've had a chance to at least find out what the best practices are around the world.
Again, all we're looking for is a conversation. It is completely reasonable. The study exists. It has been going for months. This is not new. The motion before us doesn't even mention the often cited minister's letter. It's not in there. It is simply to create a wider conversation based on a Standing Order 51 debate that we've already got under way.
That's all I have to say on that. Thank you.