I'm wondering if my honourable colleague is actually challenging a ruling that this motion is in order. He seems to be thinking that this motion is not in order at this committee and should belong to another committee, but you've already pronounced that this is in order and can be before the committee.
I'm not sure about the point being made by my honourable colleague. Clearly, what he's trying to do is dodge this issue completely, and no doubt in his next breath he will propose a motion to go in camera.
It's not particularly sporting for the Christmas season to be putting into question the fact that this motion—