No, I understand that. I understand that. And that goes directly to my question: if this notice of motion was amended in the way suggested by Mr. Moore, and there was an attempt in future business of the committee to bring a motion while a discussion was going on, and you deemed it to be a substantive motion, the individual would not be able to table the motion and have it debated then. They would simply have to give 48 hours' notice, and it wouldn't be until 48 hours later that it could actually be moved, debated on, and voted if necessary. But this motion, as it is currently worded, would allow someone to move a motion during a discussion or debate; you deem it to be a substantive motion that is in fact directly related to the business then under consideration; and there would be the possibility of having it actually debated and determined at that point, while the business then under consideration continues to be under consideration.
So this amendment being proposed by Mr. Moore is actually quite substantive and could actually change the way in which the committee works. I've sat on legislative committees before. Normally the notice of motion, except for the number of hours' notice required, which has changed--in some cases it was 24 hours, in other cases there was no notice required--has always permitted that a substantive motion that related directly to business then under consideration could be moved and debated without the deadline notice.