Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this, and I preface this by saying that I'm a new member of Parliament, and I think that, like all of us here, I'm learning the rules.
I'm looking at Bosc and Gagnon right now and specifically the section dealing with committees, which falls under chapter 20. There's a section there that delineates “Substantive Motions”, and I think all of us would agree that constitutes what Ms. Konanz's motion was.
I understand that this is clause-by-clause. There was a previous motion adopted by this committee to proceed to clause-by-clause. I would like to get some very clear direction from you, Mr. Chair, on precisely when a substantive motion that has previously been put on notice—I don't think anyone is disputing that—could be raised, because it moved very quickly, it seemed, from clause 1 to clause 2, and there was no recognition of there being, for lack of a term, a dormant time between those two.
I would seek very clear direction from you, Mr. Chair, on at what point someone could be recognized from the floor and introduce a substantive motion that has previously been put on notice.