Mr. Chair, I simply disagree with your interpretation. This was not a constitutional amendment that we adopted a few weeks ago. We said that we would give an opportunity to discuss the possibilities around issues of distance. I completely disagree with this new attempt to stonewall the work of the committee.
Essentially we have a motion that was adopted. The Conservatives are on record, and we have very clearly expressed, on this side of the committee table, that we do not believe that a dissident report is in order. We very clearly said that.
We have tried to move motions repeatedly to simply allow this report, this motion to be tabled. So we've had the discussion around whether or not it's appropriate to have a dissidence motion around a committee motion. Most members of this committee do not believe that it is appropriate, and so we have had a proposal from Mr. Bains. We have had my proposal.
What we have to do is defeat this motion, very clearly. I don't believe it's in order, because Mr. Cannan has indicated that he believes it covers all motions and all reports, which would clearly not be in order. But if it is simply referring to this particular motion that we are bringing forward to the House, it might be in order.
If we defeat it, please allow the members of this committee to then put forward a motion that allows this motion to be tabled immediately in the House. I would suggest—and I will come back to this issue in a moment, once we defeat this motion—that the vice-chair, Mr. Cardin, should be the one tabling it in the House, because he originated the motion.