Madam Chair, I think that we should not waste the committee's time. When you ruled—and the committee has supported your decision—that amendment BQ-3 was not admissible, I believe that you also automatically condemned amendment BQ-4 to the same fate. In fact, the latter was brought in to support the former. Madam Chair, amendment BQ-3 corrected a gap in the regulations. Amendment BQ-4 led us to discuss an even greater say for the provinces. It tightens things up even more. I suppose that you are going to declare it inadmissible too, and the committee, if it maintains its logic, will concur. We will respect your decision, Madam Chair, because the committee has dealt with the matter.
On June 12th, 2007. See this statement in context.