The amendment that is being proposed refers to a plaintiff bringing an application under subclause 22(1), and we've just voted to delete clause 22. It rather amazes me that the NDP member is persisting in moving an amendment that relates to a provision that has been deleted from the bill. I think that is out of order because it would just be a gong show if we had a clause in an bill that refers to another clause that doesn't exist.
On February 3rd, 2011. See this statement in context.