I apologize to my colleague. I was waiting to hear his explanation, but since he's getting down to the nitty-gritty here, I want to point out a problem with this motion.
I'm willing to believe that it's admissible, but the problem, as my colleague will probably agree, is that the entire architecture or structure of the motion is based on a single study that hasn't been translated into French. So I'm being asked to make decisions regarding this motion without having access to the French version of that study. It doesn't exist.
I would've preferred to have a French version of the study, because the organizational structure of its wording is more than a mere detail. The structure and wording of the motion are based on a study the ins and outs of which I can't ascertain in French.
I'm sure that my Conservative colleagues are receptive to the argument I'm making today. I am in no way suggesting that I might not want to discuss the motion.
It seems to me that an effort could have been made to translate the study in question. I believe it's only 11 pages long. At least the abstract and conclusion could have been translated.
I submit that to you, Mr. Chair, so that you can assess the matter as a whole and come to a decision.
The second question in my mind concerns the fact that the calendar already provides—