Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I add to the welcome back. Thank you for focusing, as you are, on the matters at hand.
I would like to refer to two points that speak to the proposed amendment by Ms. Sitsabaiesan. First, the amendment, if passed, risks procedure overwhelming substance. Secondly, it could also jeopardize the important privileges of a private member to enable him to have his bill progress in fair and just procedures through our House.
The first thing is that this amendment, if passed, could ultimately kill the bill for procedural reasons, and that is because it proposes that the consideration of the bill in the House occur on a day after the House may indeed rise. Practically speaking, everybody in this room knows that may be the case.
Time after time over the centuries, natural justice has prevailed in suggesting that procedure should not overwhelm substance.
If we let the process take precedence over the content this will mean that we parliamentarians will not have the opportunity to focus on the content. The content here is citizenship, terrorism and the convergence of those two things.
It is very important that we not allow procedure...