Mr. Chairman, I think we have gone on now for about two and a half hours on matters that have been under discussion.
I feel compelled, for me and for members on this side—I hope I'm not offending anybody on a partisan basis by saying this—to reinforce what I said earlier on as to the position of the members on this side of the table with respect to arriving at a solution. I think it's worth repeating that members from three different parties, who have different positions and different approaches, took the initiative presented to them by the parliamentary secretary in an off-table discussion and said, “We can work with this. Let's offer them the opportunity to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible and cooperate with them in establishing a motion that would reflect that in wording that would be legally proper, procedurally correct, and satisfying to us.” But the first two were the operative terms.
For three different parties and members of my party—who have positions that seem to be completely different—to come to this point was really quite something. So when I offered up a suspension of the debate—and I know I'm repeating this, it's at least the fourth time I've said it—it was because I felt that the motion that would come forward at the next sitting of this committee would reflect the input of the government members as well.
That, for me, would have been a motion that would have made all the others redundant and would have made everything else moot. I don't know where, in the last two and a half hours, we lost that train of thought. I hesitate to say that it was when there was an amendment to the motion, but—