That is the subamendment.
Does everyone understand the subamendment? It basically is to drop the NDP from all subsequent rounds, because Mr. Siksay's amendment refers to “subsequent rounds”. So the subamendment by Mr. Hiebert, as I understand it, would eliminate the NDP from any subsequent-round questioning and replace it with a Conservative. The order of those would be the same order that was articulated in the motion moved by Mr. Poilievre. Is that right?
I think we had better call the question on the subamendment by Mr. Hiebert. Is that acceptable to members, to put the question now?
All those in favour of the subamendment by Mr. Hiebert, raise your hands. All those opposed. It's a tie.
On the basis of status quo, I am going to keep the NDP in the mix of questioning after the first round. So that's defeated.
(Subamendment negatived)