Thank you, Chair.
My points are not to debate whether or not it's appropriate to have the Sunday prior to voting day as an advance poll or, as some would call it, a second polling day. My argument is one that's strictly on procedure.
I believe your ruling was correct. This clearly is outside the scope, because this bill, as we received it, was passed at second reading and then came to committee. Procedures and practices of the House indicate that amendments at committee after second reading should only be, shall we say, technical in nature, certainly not substantive. By contrast, if a bill were submitted to committee before second reading, then substantive amendments could certainly be made. That's why there's a difference between committees receiving bills before or after second reading.
The clear procedures of our own House indicate this amendment should be ruled out of order since it is very substantive, since one of the key provisions of the bill was to include the Sunday prior to voting day and all the provisions contained there.
I can't see any procedural reason why it would be appropriate to overturn your ruling, because your ruling was clearly quite correct by the very rules and procedures and practice that govern us.
That having been said, that's obviously my opinion. I would like to ask for comments from some of our officials from PCO as to their views. I don't know if the term “appropriateness of this amendment” would be correct, but certainly whether they think this amendment should be considered in order or not.
Chair, I'm not sure which one of the witnesses you wish to....