I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to have a written version of this motion.
Second, earlier, you didn't allow motions to be moved immediately after the adoption of a clause in the bill and just before the start of the discussion on the next clause. We're now debating my amendment, and you're suddenly allowing the committee to debate a motion. This isn't the same as asking whether there's unanimous consent on what's being proposed. This is a proper motion. I may not be an expert on procedure, but I think something's wrong here.
You said earlier that we were going to deal with amendment BQ‑1 and that we'd move on to other things afterward. I understood that those other things could include the possibility of putting forward a motion or asking whether there's unanimous consent on how to proceed. I don't want to call you to order, but I'd like us to deal with my amendment first. We can then move on.
Now, I'm telling you, I'm starting to get a bit irritated by the fact that there's a double standard when it comes to applying the rules of procedure. There's never any consistency.
The debate is currently about an amendment to a clause of the bill, and a member has been filibustering since this morning. I'd like to know whether the debate will continue and whether we're going to vote on the amendment. I think it's your job to clarify that before the committee starts debating Mr. Caputo's motion.