Thanks, Chair.
On the narrow motion that's been moved to adjourn debate on Mr. Moore's motion, I would simply, in the subject matter, concur with what Ms. Lantsman has said. I would hope that on an important issue such as this, and I understand Mr. Garrison's comments that there are competing important things.... That is certainly something that as parliamentarians we deal with on a daily basis. I would suggest that we have a host of important issues.
I would, however, urge the committee that if there is, in fact, the consensus that Mr. Garrison has suggested, if there is the ability to pass the motion that Mr. Moore moved and Ms. Lantsman spoke about, I don't see why we can't allow a discussion, which could be brief, assuming that there is the agreement that has been inferred. Certainly, I plan to be voting in support of this motion as described.
I would, however, question why it needs to be put on hold when we have it before the House today. We have a situation that continues to evolve, and I followed with great interest the circumstances that took place in the Maritimes about Hanukkah celebrations being disallowed and then, thankfully, the reversal of that decision. I know that I plan, with the Jewish community from Battle River—Crowfoot, some of whom I know quite well, to be able to celebrate with them when the time comes.
Madam Chair, my simple request would be that we not adjourn debate on this but rather that we allow for the debate to continue. I would suggest that it won't take too long. I believe there are votes that will take place here in the next 50 minutes or so, but to allow this discussion to take place to ensure that prior to a series of celebrations that affect many faiths across our country, whether that be Christmas or Hanukkah or others.... I think this is prescient and it is time-sensitive.
Not to dismiss or to suggest that there are not other important issues, but we see how the five points laid out here would be a small step that would allow this committee to make a strong statement, which then would allow the House to make an equally strong statement—and I would hope we have support for it accordingly—to all Canadians that their Parliament, of which government and the executive of government are a function, something that seems to be forgotten by the current individuals in charge.... However, I'll not get into the depths on that. However, I think that in allowing this debate to continue I would hope that it would collapse without too much delay and we can get this important issue moved in a sense that provides certainty, especially to some groups in our country that are facing significant challenges.
I'll end on this, Madam Chair. I would simply say that if we're able to get back to the debate—I know that I'm somewhere on the speaking list—I would like to have the opportunity to outline some of the stories I've heard, and that I know my colleagues have as well, about how we need to ensure that our people in this country—whether they have a faith or not and regardless of what that faith background is—are protected: that we protect them and that we live up to the high ideals that Canadians expect of us.
With that, Madam Chair, because it is not a dilatory motion, I would urge members of this committee to allow the debate on Mr. Moore's motion to continue. Hopefully, it will wrap up organically, and we can deal with it and then move on to the urgency of other issues before this committee.