I'll get to it. I'm in the middle of ruling on the amendment that Mr. Hiebert presented.
We're on the amendment proposed by Mr. Hiebert to Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment. We refer to it as the subamendment. I tried to explain that the intent or the action of an amendment to anything should be to provide greater precision to the motion it's amending, not to add on to it more elements to do more things. When it reaches that point, it goes beyond the scope of the motion or the amendment that you're trying to amend.
The reason for the inadmissibility of the amendment is that it's going beyond the scope of the Van Kesteren amendment, because it's doing a whole new set of activities not contemplated, not referred to in the Van Kesteren motion. So I rule the amendment out of order.
Mr. Tilson, on a point of order.