I might distinguish myself yet again in this regard, Mr. Chair.
As a meta-process, because I know it's not kosher to deliberate on challenges to the chair or your rulings, I would suggest that it would be helpful for members, if you are unsure of the admissibility of something, that you right off the bat say, “I would like us to have a discussion about the admissibility,” or, if you've already come to a conclusion, it would be helpful just to say, “I've come to the conclusion of inadmissibility,” and then we'll make our decisions. The reason, Mr. Chair, is that we all want to see substantial changes, but it does make for a better process, I think, if we know a bit more head-on where you may or may not be going, so we can govern ourselves accordingly.
Don't take it as a criticism, but more as a suggestion for future iterations, because I think it is helpful if, before we start debating the substance, we know we're in procedurally smooth waters.