Madam Chair, I am going to challenge your ruling, and here's why.
Both you and Mr. Komarnicki had the opportunity to make your arguments. I think it is only fair that I also make mine. If by chance you were right, that would mean that all the work the committee did on the long form would have been outside the scope of our mandate, which, in my opinion, is completely unacceptable.
In addition, the committee's mandate is to do this study and it is not doing so lightly. It is doing it precisely to find out whether there is a reason behind the long form. This study would not be done otherwise. Since, based on the testimonies we have heard, we can see that the long form has to be kept and since that's what the committee's recommendation is going to be, we have to go the extra step, meaning that we have to wait for the right time to retain it. Otherwise, even the decision of the House would be null and void. But that's not the intent of the House of Commons. The House did in fact indicate that the long form should be retained. Our responsibility and mandate were to do the study in order to identify the components that should be kept. As soon as we have the mandate to make the recommendation for retaining it...