I have to consult with the clerk on the point. We have a difference of opinion with regard to matters that must stand once they are made.
So that we're clear, Monsieur Cardin has raised a procedural matter. He wants to challenge the chair. I could probably explain to members what's going on, but why don't I have the clerk explain it.
We're really talking about two different matters here. We're talking about a decision that has been made. We have voted and that's that. We now have Monsieur Cardin challenging whether the chair will go back on the point and his challenge to the decision that was made. The chair has said he is not going back; we have made a decision. The challenge is whether or not I have the will of the committee to say that the matter is behind us.
When you challenge the chair, that is not debatable. All we need is clarity on what the challenge is. The challenge is on the decision I made about not going back to the vote. That is the question.
So we are clear, Monsieur Cardin, I have made a decision that we are not going back to the vote from the last meeting. The matter is behind us; the matter will stand. You now want to challenge that ruling, and it is not debatable.
If everyone is clear, the challenge is on my position, as chair, that I do not wish to go back to the previous meeting's vote. I would suggest that those who will be voting in favour of Monsieur Cardin's challenge will challenge my decision to carry on. That's the extent of it.
Is that clear to everyone? It is not debatable. I just want to know if it's clear to people.