Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I don't want to lead where I left off. I was about to make an intervention on the subamendment where we left off, and I'm pleased to report that's not where I plan to start.
As you signalled, there have been a couple of conversations on the basis of the proposal that Mr. Poilievre put forward. I received just a few moments ago an email from Mr. Poilievre with some modest tweaks to the last version of the motion that I had discussed with him.
Pierre, if I can keep this informal, I think they seem quite minor and fine, despite our point about the Ethics Commissioner, and I think that's an accommodation that we'd be happy to make.
Mr. Chair, I just flipped the most recent copy of this to you. I appreciate that not all committee members will have seen it. It's substantially similar. What I propose to do is just read it aloud. I do apologize, Mr. Chair. The most recent version that I sent to Mr. Poilievre was translated in both official languages, but I don't have the French language for the version that I've just received now.
I'm sorry. I have a little technical issue here. I have too many things popping up on my phone at once, but I'll read this in a moment.
Pierre, for what it's worth, I'm reading directly from the email you sent to me: That the committee temporarily set aside the motion relating to the point of privilege put forward by the Member for Carleton on October 8, 2020, and the subsequent subamendments moved by the Member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and the Member for Kingston and the Islands....
Just one moment, please.
I'm sorry, Pierre. Can I ask for just a point of clarification before I continue reading this?
I thought for some reason that there was an amendment put forward by Mr. Julian, not the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge. Has that been changed? Just to reflect what has actually taken place, I want to make sure we're parking the entire debate on the privilege motion we've been dealing with.