I'm going to again, just for clarification, explain exactly what happened.
The motion that was adopted by the committee was distributed to all the members for reference again, and then I clarified some points on the motion to ensure that we had clarity in terms of how we were proceeding with respect to the three items I raised.
Mr. Jean then raised a point of order and asked for clarification of my interpretation. I presented my interpretation. He presented an alternate interpretation. I ruled. So the ruling is this: my ruling was that his interpretation was incorrect, and that's when he immediately challenged me, as you're supposed to do if you choose to challenge the chair. So he challenged my ruling.
My initial thing with respect to the three items was not a ruling; it was an explanation to the committee. So he presented an alternate interpretation. I ruled that his interpretation was incorrect. He challenged the chair. A challenge to the chair is not debatable. That challenge carried the day, so we are proceeding with Mr. Jean's interpretation. That is the best advice I am getting here from procedural clerks in terms of how to proceed.
Now, it is a very unusual situation. It's also an unusual situation that it seems you don't want to vote on your own amendments, Mr. Brison. So it is an odd procedural matter here in the committee.