My only comment, Mr. Chairman, would be that Ms. McLeod asked for the floor on the basis that it was a point of order, so just to keep order in the committee, it would be incumbent on you to rule that no, it is not a point of order, and then we could entertain this friendly motion that's going back and forth.
On the question of why you won't wait until the motion is put on an amendment to make these arguments, my understanding from a process point of view is that you ran out of time to hear further witnesses and to get the answers from the CRA, so the agreement was that you would deal with the response from the CRA, as submitted to the committee in written form, prior to the clause-by-clause analysis.
Is that a fair interpretation?