I have a point of order that is not debate. This is a point of order maybe following on Mr. Genuis' point of order.
My problem is that it is presented as an amendment to the bill as it stands in clause 2, and yet now it doesn't really make sense because it's amending G-1.
I am having trouble rationalizing between the amendment of G-1 and the amendment of NDP-1 as though it's an amendment to G-1. I think this doesn't really work, because G-1 starts replacing from line 9, so that part would be removed, but the problem is that NDP-1 starts replacing from line 12. That's just one of the examples of the problem.
We're not necessarily opposed to it, but I would like you to rule on whether it's actually a subamendment—an amendment to the amendment—and whether or not it is in order in its scope.