That was certainly not my intention. On the contrary, I would suggest that we study all the subamendments, but in order to avoid confusion, I'm suggesting that we look at them one at a time. If there is a point (a) in his subamendment, let's discuss it, debate it and vote on it. Then, Mr. Beaulieu would present point (b), for example.
I'm not suggesting in any way that we limit committee members to just one amendment. That's not what I'm saying. Our rules of procedure must be followed.
Do you understand, Mr. Beaulieu?