Thank you, Chair.
I appreciate being able to comment on the point of order. For what it's worth, I think the point of order is in order. In other words, I don't think this has already got any kind of a clear passage. I disagree with Mr. D'Amours that the 48 hours suddenly means that it's in order. My opinion is that it's in order to challenge whether it's in order.
Having said that, either to you or through you, Chair, if you'll permit, I'm just a little unclear on Mr. Kramp's usage of saying “expand the terms of reference”. Again, before we get to the substantive part of the motion at hand, I'm on the point of order. Mr. Kramp believes, if I'm understanding correctly, that it's outside the existing terms of reference, and therefore, in the absence of a motion expanding it, it's therefore out of order. That's his case, Chair.
Again, through you, Chair, if I might, to Mr. Kramp, I don't understand what the initial terms of reference are that would require a motion to expand. Pretty much what we deem to be relevant to our work is in order, if decided by a majority.
Help me understand what you mean by “terms of reference” and that therefore we need a motion to go outside them. I'm not getting that part of it.
If you'll permit, Chair....