Yes. I have two points. I think the right is given to any other party to speak before another member of the same party.
I'm wondering if you would receive the advice that the motion before you presented by Mr. Carrie is indeed out of order. The motion itself is argumentative. It's a substantive motion that deals with argument and therefore is not receivable. Further to that ruling, I propose that we move immediately to clause-by-clause of the bill. That is my counter-proposal, if you deem that this is ruled as argumentative.
If you seek it, you will probably determine that the substance of what is put forward by Mr. Carrie's motion is indeed argumentative, and the simple motion is to proceed to clause-by-clause.