We're on NDP-5. I believe you explained the first seven NDP amendments, right, Peter? The NDP-5 amendment extends the existing admissibility period referred to in the bill, which will result in more money coming out of the treasury. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible because it requires a royal recommendation. There are no challenges on that.
For NDP-6, we have basically the same reason. It requires money to come out of the treasury and therefore requires a royal recommendation, so it is inadmissible.
For NDP-7—I think you explained them that far—we have basically the same reason. It requires money from the treasury and therefore requires a royal recommendation, so I declare it inadmissible.
We're on BQ-2, with Gabriel Ste-Marie. I'll let you explain it first and then I'll make a comment.