As an elected member, both in the House and at committee, I have a duty and a responsibility to represent constituents, as well as, under the guidelines in this book, a right to certain kinds of processes.
I feel that your rulings on the limitation of my ability to debate an issue and to therefore put forward coherent arguments on the need for an extension really interfere with my privilege to be able to speak and to put forward my case on a motion that is before the committee.
Before this life I have been in many formal meetings headed by chairs and all kinds of things, and I know the things that can happen there. But in all the time I've been in Parliament, Mr. Chair, this is the first time I've had such a narrow interpretation put on, first, the subamendments and then the amendment. We were told when we were at the amendment stage to just deal with the amendment because when we got to the main motion we would get to speak to the main motion. Now, instead of the full wording, because it's the full wording that was moved—and I'm not going to read the wording to you again because I have read it to you before. The two paragraphs that are the original motion as moved by the parliamentary secretary, my colleague across the way, are what is before us here at the committee.
When it talks about an extension of 30 sitting days, it's the only motion here. None of the wording preceding that sentence is here. Also, if we were just seeking a motion to extend for 30 days, without any reason to, then I would say that would be considered arbitrary and capricious and just being a troublemaker, so to speak.