Just for clarification, Mr. Davies, again, the clerk advised me that when Mr. Morantz originally moved this, it was a dilatory motion with a condition, and the clerk's advice was that it became a debatable motion.
We didn't get to that motion because my ruling in regard to it being a dilatory motion with a condition on it—which means it was open to debate—was overturned by Mr. Turnbull, not the motion that Mr. Morantz brought up.
Once again, this new motion that Mr. Morantz has brought forward is a different motion. It's not the same as the previous one, and we technically have not gotten to it because, once again, we are open to debate on that dilatory motion with a condition, which I got advice from the clerk on.