Mr. Chair, on a point of order, in this case you would have actually been better letting me finish, I think.
Here we have an agenda that you told me about when we talked about clause 10, moved immediately to consideration of clause 10. You said that we must follow the agenda as set out in last Thursday's meeting. Despite the fact that Mr. Menzies' motion ripped apart any possibility of a really effective move to clause-by-clause throughout the bill, we're in a situation now where, if we follow the agenda, we will be moving from the amendments to debate on whether clause 10.1 should carry.
Indeed, as you know, Mr. Chair, what you are endeavouring to do is exactly the opposite. We've had one process for clause 10, and we are now going to a completely different process for new clause 10.1. What gives, Mr. Chair? What is the agenda? How are we trying to move through this extremely complex bill that needs to be improved because it was badly botched in the drafting? There's no doubt, Mr. Chair, that we have work to do on every single clause, but if we change our rules of procedure and how we function in every clause, then what we're going to end up with is just a lot more points of order than the serious kind of consideration that needs to take place on this bill.
We moved through clause 10 having discussion on the amendments, and then we moved to debate on whether clause 10 should carry. We are now--and this is why I'm raising my point of order--moving to clause 10.1, a new clause. According to what is written very specifically in the agenda, we are moving to, “Shall new clause 10.1 carry?” Well, we are doing that without debate. Now, either we are adhering to this agenda that we set up, despite what Mr. Menzies did to rip apart that agenda, or we're not. But we can't have different rules of order and different rules of procedure for each of the clauses as we work through this process.
That is my point of order, Mr. Chair.