Mr. Goodyear, I'm going to give the floor back to you, but this suggestion that somehow there's some trickery and your representation that if someone challenges the chair it ceases debate.... Quite frankly, sir, the reality is that when the chair makes a ruling, takes a decision that—and I did, at those meetings—all questions necessary to dispose of the matter before the committee be put now, that is a decision of the chair. That itself stops debate, sir. It's not the challenge of the chair. You are incorrect, and it's misleading. The challenge of the chair is available to members if they disagree or if they're not sure they understood what it meant, and it buys some time. It's not trickery.
Ultimately, if there is no challenge to the chair, the chair's decision simply stands and you move forward with taking the vote. If there's a challenge to the chair, the first thing that happens—to explain the procedure—is that it's not debatable; you have a vote on whether the chair's decision is going to be sustained, and if not, then you carry on with debate. If it is sustained, you move to the vote.
In fact, it's quite the reverse. Challenging the chair and not sustaining the chair continues the debate.
Now we understand how the procedure works. It's not trickery; it actually is part of the authorized procedures of the Standing Orders and the House.
I'll give the floor back to you, Mr. Goodyear.