From my understanding, the argument was that it substantially changed the original motion, and also—there were two parts to it—that we had already ruled on the “report back to the House” stage.
I deemed that, because you were introducing something new, which was the CRTC and that it was related to the motion, it was not substantially changing it in my mind, that it justified not having the “report back to the House” portion, which we had already ruled on. That was my ruling, which has been—