Madam Chair, I'm just trying to get a better appreciation of what exactly is going on. There seems to me to be at least two ways in which this motion is out of order.
In the first case, typically if you're proposing a new study or you have any kind of substantive motion—this is part of the routine motions we passed at the beginning of the committee—you have to give 48 hours' notice. I don't believe notice has been given. It's my sense that the motion is out of order, in that sense.
The second sense in which I think it may be out of order is that I don't see how it's a dilatory motion. There are a few kinds of typical dilatory motions which are outlined in House procedure. One is that the committee do now adjourn. Another is that the debate be now adjourned. The third is that the committee proceed to another order of business.
There is no order of business that's been given any notice for, so it doesn't seem to me that a dilatory motion can be used as a way to shoehorn in a new order of business that there's been no due notice given for. Otherwise, we could do this all day. We could just all bring whatever we want to talk about to the floor in the form of a dilatory motion, which I think would really undermine the routine motion that was passed in terms of at least giving notice. I think you'd find, with the number of motions on the table, that members may decide that being able to raise any potential issue of study in the form of a dilatory motion would become a way of doing business.
I would just offer that word of caution. I think the ruling here about whether this motion as it's being presented is in order can have a considerable amount of significance for this committee in this session of Parliament. Also, because the procedure and House affairs committee is the committee that other committees look to for guidance on how to conduct their business, this is the kind of ruling that could have a considerable ripple effect on the way in which all committees of the House conduct their business. I understand that this is not the only committee experiencing a filibuster.
I think your ruling is important in this regard. I think it's important to get it right. I would urge you not to rush. I don't think anybody can accuse the committee of rushing to anything recently, so I don't see any value, in this case, in departing from the culture that's been set. I would encourage you to take the time to reflect on the nature of this motion and the consequences of having us deal with it in the way that Mr. Turnbull is proposing.