On a point of clarification, Madam Chair, I don't understand what procedure we're operating under here. There has been a point of privilege raised by our colleague. We should be able to discuss this point of privilege. This may have just arisen now, three hours and 18 minutes into this meeting, but it may arise again. There may be other amendments to amendments that come up from the floor. It's about whether there is a legal translation in the French language if it's presented in English or a legal translation in English if it's presented in French. He has raised a point of privilege. We should be able to discuss that point of privilege. I appreciate that you are trying to facilitate something here, but procedurally we haven't dealt with the point of privilege.
I take my colleague's point that what was presented to him was not sufficient and that he is indeed even hurt by this, which I totally understand. I would probably feel the same way if the languages were in reverse. He has the right as a parliamentarian to look at this. If it were at the beginning of a meeting or even midway through where we had time to digest it, that's one thing. But, as I said, we're going into over three and a quarter hours here today. There is no reason.... As I said when I supported the motion to adjourn, this would allow for a proper legal translation to be presented, and we would come back fresh at our next meeting with those translations in place. He may very well be supportive of the amendment, but he should have the right to see it in a legal translation with enough time to digest it and look at it. It's a practical matter if nothing else, but surely it is a point of privilege that should be maintained.