Now we have to go back to clause 1. We stood that clause because of the definition. We couldn't pass it because there was a possible amendment to the definition, but that definition has not been adopted in the amendment, so I have to rule on it. I have to read my ruling.
Just so you know, I am ruling on amendment CPC-0.1. In terms of definitions, the interpretation clause can only be amended if the bill has been amended in a way that requires such a change, so this is not the place to propose a substantive amendment. This did not come up as a clause passed, so in essence, I rule it inadmissible because it's not referenced and it's not in any of the amendments adopted. That's another inadmissible.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
Shall the title carry?