Well, Chair, I hear your dilemma, and I sympathize. I certainly respect absolutely my colleague's right to have it translated properly and to have it circulated as an official document. I accept and respect that entirely, but I hope that everyone would respect my right to have a motion in front of me so that I can look at the exact wording in either language and so I know what I'm voting for and I can defend it. That's my problem.
It's a little bit complex and there are some nuances to the motion. I'm not trying to stand on technicalities here, but I would like to see every word that's in there because we may have quite a debate coming, and I don't feel equipped for that unless I have the wording of the motion in front of me.
Chair, I don't want to make your life complicated, and I realize this does, but you're into a situation of rights versus rights and it seems to me the losers in this case are going to be time and efficiency. But I don't know how else to get out of this unless we pass the main motion as amended and then give Daryl the right to place a stand-alone motion. Even if it is technically an amendment, we would see it as a stand-alone and deal with it at the next meeting. That would allow us to have the timelines that are in the main motion here carried.
I would ask the Conservatives to bend a little extra to help us given that we sort of went out of our way. I'd hate to see the main motion lost with its deadlines in there because we were good enough to open it up, got ourselves caught up in some technicalities, and then when 5:30 comes along, we won't have passed the main motion. That would be a real loss.