I want to stress that again. In order to explain that, I have to go back to the motion that is before us, because the motion is not one sentence; the motion is both paragraphs. We're not dealing with a subamendment or an amendment that was moved afterwards. When Mr. Dykstra moved this, he moved both paragraphs; he spoke to both paragraphs and here we are dealing with both paragraphs. For me, as a parliamentarian, to be told that I do not have the right or I am not going to be permitted to talk to the whole motion as it sits here does, I believe, very severely limit my parliamentary privilege.
It's one of those things we guard very dearly, Mr. Chair. As you know, both in the House and here, there are very few things that are open to the opposition members of Parliament. One of those is their right to speak on motions that are there. When the motion is presented, I believe we—as elected officials, once we have the floor, in an orderly manner and following the rules of the committee—have a right to speak on those motions. It's because of that that I feel my rights are being trampled upon, and it's because right in this whole motion—and I think you have to agree the whole motion is in front of us, not a part of it that one person can select, to say, oh, this is the only part. It actually talks about an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-425. Then it goes on to say what the bill is. It further goes on to say that it be granted the power to expand the scope.
We're not seeking an extension just so that we can sit here and meet ad nauseam. The extension the government is seeking is to get that expansion. So unless I can talk to that—and this is where parliamentary privilege comes in, because if I cannot talk to the motion that is on the floor, then my rights are being limited in one way or another.
I believe that as an elected official, who has very few rights under this majority government, one of the few privileges I do have as a parliamentarian is to be able to speak according to the rules. And according to the rules here, when it's my turn to speak, I can speak. You know, relevancy comes in, absolutely. I can speak on motions. But now, suddenly, I'm hearing I can only speak on one little sentence in a motion with many sentences. That, really, is where I believe my privilege as a parliamentarian is being restricted and is being violated.
I take my elected office very, very seriously, both when I'm in my riding and when I am here in the House. I think you know that I'm not shy about speaking on different issues; it doesn't have to be just in my critic area. I exercise that right on behalf of my constituents regularly, and will continue to do so.
I am continuing to make this a point of privilege at this time because I feel that it's not only my rights as a member of Parliament but the rights of the people who elected me and sent me here—their rights are being restricted as well.
When I look at the rules that exist around privilege...once it's raised, I do realize that I get to make my case, and then the committee gets a chance to deliberate as well, and to eventually vote. I also realize, as I'm raising all these points of privilege, that I need to get a majority of parliamentarians, many of whom I have heard defend parliamentary privilege and the privilege of backbench MPs and all of us who get elected.... I'm hoping they will support me in this and give me an opportunity to make my arguments before the Speaker in a fulsome way.
None of us should take a breach of parliamentary privilege lightly. It is to be taken very seriously by every one of us. To fully explore it, I would need to see that going to the House, and when it's in the House I will gladly put forward my case as to why it needs to go where it is.
As I was saying previously—and I'm going to try to make some new points on this—elections come and go, but our parliamentary democracy and the rules we abide by are here. One of the things that it behooves every one of us who sits on this committee to do is...yes, we can try to stretch the rules, which we do, but at the same time, one of the areas we have to see as sacrosanct is when a member is feeling their ability to express their point of view is being narrowed to the point where...I would question whether we need to have a debate, because this kind of interpretation violates my privilege. You could have an amendment moved and then it's yes or no.
It was very hard to sit through the subamendment and then the amendment and then be told I would get an opportunity to speak on the main motion, but now I'm on the main motion and I'm hearing ruled over and over again that I can only speak on one sentence, and that's the last sentence of the motion. That, to me, does not seem to be the right way for us to be carrying out our parliamentary duties and practices.
It is with that in mind....
Chair, am I—
