Chair, with the greatest respect to my colleague across the table, who I've worked with on committee for a number of years now and who I know is diligent in her work, I think we have a procedural dilemma here. I'm asking you to declare this motion out of order at this time, for the simple reason that the issue at hand was discussed by our committee in various forms, but the committee did not come to a conclusive agreement on either the scope or the direction of the motion.
To seek to expand the terms of reference of this motion to something we still haven't even come to an agreement on initially is I think really presumptuous, and of course it's definitely premature. You can't go down the road until you turn on the key in the vehicle. In other words, first of all, we have to have a motion passed by this committee to agree to the terms of reference for the study, in order to see whether that's expanded or it isn't. If this committee were to agree to expand the terms of reference, then Madame Faille's motion would be in order.
But the committee has not come to an agreement yet. Should we come to that agreement, we could go down that road with the order. In other words, I believe we really can't expand the scope--which is the request of this motion--if we haven't even authorized the original motion.
That's why, Chair, I would ask you to rule this motion--at this time--out of order. I say that with the greatest of respect for Madame Faille, because I understand her intent, and quite frankly, the government agrees with her intent, and I agree with her intent personally. If we were to proceed down the road with the issue, we have to do it properly, and “properly” says that we can't go ahead with an expanded agenda when we haven't even really first of all come to an agreement on that agenda, period.