I understand completely what you are proposing. By way of corroboration, I am going to tell you about a precedent. Precedents can guide our decisions.
Bill C-257 was approved in committee. Amendments had been made, and there was consensus among committee members that the amendments were in order, despite the view of the chair. A vote was taken and the ruling of the chair was overturned. When the bill went back to the House, the Speaker felt that the changes went beyond the scope of the original bill. The amendments were not accepted, and we went back to the original bill that had been tabled in the House to begin with.
So I would like to know if, based on the precedent of Bill C-257, the same thing could happen to the bill we are considering today.