Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this is pretty clear. In my understanding, as I read through this bill and then had to go back into the different pieces of legislation to really, truly understand what exactly this amendment would mean....
Monsieur Thériault explained in great detail how much work he put into doing this. I think many members of Parliament put in that same amount of work, although perhaps not to the same degree of precision. I think we need to commend Monsieur Thériault for the wonderful work he does in ensuring that Canada does have the best possible legislation, but I don't understand, after the conversations we've had around this table, and specifically the clarification given by Mr. Calkins, how this amendment would be in order based on the very clear admissibility rules for amendments. I'm at a loss.
The decision was made prior to hearing all of this, and there is no space for changing it. It very clearly does not fit in line with the principle of the bill. It very clearly does not fit within the scope of the bill as written by the person who drafted the bill. In most circumstances, we don't have the luxury to hear from the person who created the bill on their intentions in order to really understand whether something is or is not within the scope. We had that opportunity today. We very clearly heard it. I think it was exceptionally clear.
I'm very frustrated that the NDP is saying that they fully support this bill and they want to get this through, and then they put forward an amendment that effectively does it in a slightly less direct way than what we had before. Maybe this is a tiny bit, slightly less bad than the sledgehammer that came from the Minister of Health, but it still does not address the actual issues. It is not in line with the principle of the bill. It is not in line with the scope of the bill. I don't believe it has that space.
Mr. Chair, I truly believe that the decision from the legislative clerks is wrong. I'm wondering what other opportunities we have. Other than challenging the ruling of the chair, what other recourse do we have here? I do think that we need to clarify this.