Thank you, I think.
The ruling was made by Mr. Ehsassi, who is still a member of Parliament. The ruling specified—and I'm quoting directly from the minutes of the meeting.... I mean, we certainly wouldn't want a situation where Liberal chairs made contradictory rulings in different meetings based on what they considered their partisan interest.
The ruling by Mr. Ehsassi was this. I am reading from the minutes: “The Chair ruled that the election of a Chair does not constitute a new substantive question before the Committee, and that therefore the committee remained seized with the motion and amendment previously under debate.” This was the ruling of Mr. Ehsassi in exactly the same situation.
I just want to clarify—and maybe the clerk can address the committee on this—the role of precedent in the committee. Is this precedent relevant? Is it relevant that you have invented an approach that is completely opposite to what a Liberal chair did in exactly the same situation? I wonder if the clerk can address the relevance of precedent as a matter before the committee, which is, I think, a distinct issue.