Okay. We have technical difficulties at the chairmanship.
Resuming debate, the ruling is that the motion is inadmissible because it is contrary to the principle of the bill, and I'll give the rationale that has been provided to me by the legislative clerk.
Bill C-18 provides marketing freedom for grain farmers. Amendment NDP-6 would allow the Wheat Board to prosecute farmers who do not sell their grain through the board. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, it is stated on page 766 that:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of the concept of en matia monopoly power for the board is contrary to the principle of Bill C-18 and is therefore inadmissible. That is my ruling, consistent with the rules we have. So I will have to move on, then, to the next proposed amendment, which will take us to proposed section 9 of the new legislation.
Mr. Easter.