With respect, Mr. Chair, your ruling that it was debatable was overturned, and the committee said it's not debatable.
You are now permitting debate on a motion—the identical motion—which was dilatory and non-dilatory at the same time. A dilatory motion to proceed to the Standing Order 106(4) matter was moved originally by Mr. Morantz. You said that was debatable. The committee members challenged your ruling, arguing that it was not debatable. Your ruling was overturned.
Mr. Morantz, when it went back to him, then introduced the same motion, which is a dilatory motion to move to the Standing Order 106(4) request, and you're permitting debate on it when the committee just ruled that we do not agree with your ruling that it's debatable.
You are not following the ruling that was just made by the majority of this committee.