Madam Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time of the House. It is already a relatively short day.
Understand clearly there has been a tremendous amount of co-operation by all parties on an issue of significance which has been presented to the legislature in not what people would recognize as ideal conditions, both from the opposition and the government side. We have arrived at this juncture, at report stage and third reading, and clearly and emphatically the government has no intention, never had or ever would question or appeal the ruling of a chair. We give utmost respect to the authority of the Chair.
For what it is worth to the new members, I had the privilege and honour of sitting in that chair for three years. I hold it the highest esteem, as all my colleagues do on both sides of the House.
The question at this time is whether, in the ruling that was made the Speaker and respecting that ruling, there would be unanimous consent. We know from time to time only by way of unanimous consent can this Chamber go beyond some of those rulings.
In this instance the government is in a situation, quite frankly, where conceivably it would like to support one of the amendments and perhaps not the other. If they were separated we would have the opportunity to address that specific individual amendment. We are asking the consent of the House, if it would allow the debate to continue with those two items separated and dealt with individually.