Just to be clear from what we've heard from Mr. Moffet, if this clause is referring back to a piece of the bill that is no longer there, why would we simply not vote against and remove it, just for clarity's sake? Maybe the parliamentary secretary can clarify, but why not delete a clause if it refers to something that no longer exists?
His suggestion was to go on division. I'm just trying to understand tactics. We're going to face this a number of times as we go through, so--