It is a substantive change. It is inadmissible. Just so everyone knows, I'll read something from page 770 of O'Brien and Bosc, chapter 16:
In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure the uniformity of the English and French versions.
We never dealt with sustainable development in any way, shape, or form in the amendments to the bill, so it is inadmissible.
So we're talking about the preamble. All the amendments have now been dealt with. We are on to the preamble. Is there any discussion on the preamble?
Mr. Woodworth.