I think what I'm saying under the point of order is that he is actually speaking to a motion that's not before us, because what he's suggesting is how you should rule on a motion that isn't now before us and isn't comparing the motion that's not before us to the motion that is.
But then again, of course, if he really wants to deal with the motion before us, let him put it to a vote and let the committee get on with its work. It's very apparent that the honourable member is very concerned about it and really wants to get at this very quickly. I would suggest that we get on with it, have the vote on the motion, and carry forward with the work that he wants us to do.