That is a suggestion. Now, give me half a second.
Please pay attention.
We had an amendment, which was in both official languages, we voted on that amendment, and that amendment was accepted. Today we are on to the main clause—clause 10 as amended—and so subamendments cannot be entertained from the floor, because we're talking about the main amendment. Had we done this prior to it, we could accept subamendments from the floor in one language, simply because they're subamendments that have come up as the discussion has gone on.
But at this point we are into talking about this clause. When we come to clause 11, obviously we have one amendment. We can have subamendments, and they can be in either English or French. We will get them translated and in due course vote on them, and they will be accepted or not.
The problem with introducing and basically having this...and I'm going to throw this back to the committee. We can accept this amendment, which we are about to receive, if the committee is prepared to accept that amendment. If not, we will continue to debate clause 10 and vote on clause 10 eventually, and then move on to clause 11, where we can accept the amendment, plus subamendments in one language.
But basically, by the rules, to accept a new amendment at this point, when we have had the rules set out that they be submitted in both official languages, if the committee were to decide.... We don't have to accept this amendment at this point, simply because it wasn't done according to what the committee had previously decided. It's basically the will of the committee as to whether we accept this--ultimately go back to just debating clause 10 or take this new amendment. The committee needs to decide that.
Does everybody understand the rules?
Mr. Godfrey.