We're talking about a subamendment. Again, Mr. Genuis comes on and puts forward a totally ridiculous subamendment that was clearly designed to stop me or other members from making substantive amendments.
That's all I'll say here. I think we could fix this fairly easily by changing the motion—I can send on the subamendment that I had prepared, if you like—to make it clear that, where it says “no more meetings”, we add in language that says the exception is meetings that flow from a Standing Order 106(4), just to show that we're not trying to guillotine debate on a subject. If something important or new came up, as Mr. Nater said, we could say, yes, we should be talking about this. We could be talking about it during the break if it were so important.
I will try to be short here. I won't go into trying to use stronger language, but I just find this extraordinarily frustrating. I'm hoping that we can fix this. We could have fixed this quickly if we'd had a chat about the subcommittee meeting. We could have fixed this quickly if we'd had some co-operative amendments so that everybody would be happy and we knew we could come back if necessary.
However, we have gone down a rabbit hole. I'm not going to blame people and name names, but it's just really disappointing what I've been seeing in the last two meetings. That's all I'll say.