Thanks, Chair.
If I may, I had mentioned this previously and I'll raise it again only as the major focus. Before, I made it just one of my reasons.
I'm suggesting to you, Chair, with the greatest of respect, that this motion is out of order. The main reason is that this whole matter of the study that this committee has undertaken, based on a motion that passed in the House—and that's important in this context, that we are under the orders of the House here, so to some degree we're not masters of our own destiny with regard to this. On that point of the motion, we have a point of order before the Speaker, which the Speaker has taken under advisement, meaning that there has to be some merit to it, prima facie, that the Speaker feels he needs time to review it and consider it. We are waiting for that ruling.
I would suggest to you, Chair, that it is entirely appropriate, in order, and it makes all the common sense in the world that before we continue with a motion at this committee on this matter, we allow the Speaker and give him the respect to deem whether or not that motion was actually in order. If it wasn't, the work in front of us now dissolves because, given that it originated in the House and the Speaker has claimed significant jurisdiction by virtue of at least being willing to consider it right now, it seems to us that the right thing and the respectful thing to do, Chair, would be to hold this motion at least in abeyance until such time as the Speaker has made a final ruling on the originating motion that took place some weeks ago.
That would be my point of order, Chair, in terms of the relevance and whether or not this motion is actually in order, and I respectfully submit that it is not.