Madam Chair, on that point of order, I feel like the goalposts keep changing here.
At the risk of my colleague, Mr. Moore, taking back what he said before—that he agreed with me on something—and with all due respect to him, I've never understood it to be a rule that when someone moves an amendment, that he or she is then speaking for every member within that party on that amendment. You took great pains to go through some of Mr. Moore's points, and then you said he used the terminology “we” or “our”. That's very common terminology. I often use the collective “we”, but that doesn't mean I'm presupposing what someone else would say.
This really relates to my earlier point. I don't think anyone, including my own colleagues in the party that I represent, should be put in the position of speaking for me. They probably wouldn't want to do that. I don't want to do that for them. I maintain my right as an individual Parliamentarian to speak. I hope that's not what you were suggesting.