Mr. Chair, I see no reason to split those two amendments, because they are completely different. That’s how I see them.
In fact, the French version of the first amendment is intended to change lines 10 and 11, by removing the words “ne” and “que si elles sont nécessaires.” The clause would thus read: “b) la réglementation et les mesures publiques stratégiques sont utilisées pour l’obtention de résultats [. . .]”. All we are doing is completely removing the words “ne” and “que si elles sont nécessaires”. That is the first amendment.
In the second amendment, we are adding text. I think we can vote on the two amendments separately.
Mr. Clerk, I would like to know what you think, because it's important to me.
I think the first amendment is of interest because we are not making the proposed clause 5(b) a secondary condition but in fact a condition equal to clauses (a), (c), (d) and (e). That is what Mr. McGuinty wants to do.
So we mean, “regulation and strategic public intervention are directed to achieve [. . .].
I think the objective of the first amendment is that clause 5(b) is not a condition if the other does not apply; it is as important a condition as clause 5(a).
In the second amendment, we add the words “economic or environmental” and we also add “safety or security.”
Mr. Clerk, I would just like to hear your opinion, because splitting those two amendments poses a problem for me. I consider them fine as tabled.