No, absolutely not. We're going to have to go back to clause 2 anyway. I'm merely suggesting we start on clause 3 because there are implications in clause 3 that refer back to clause 2. That's all. After clause 3, we'll go back to clause 2.
I would like some clarification from the committee once again.
Mr. Lessard, I believe you're talking about subclause 3(1). That is going to determine how you vote on the rest of the bill, is that correct? Can we start with subclause 3(1), then come back to clause 3, then go back to clause 2? I promise we'll go back to clauses 4 and 5 after that.
Does that make sense for the committee? Because it does affect the way the Bloc are going to vote on the bill in general.
I put the question to you. The Bloc would like to address subclause 3(1). Right now we'll deal with subclause 3(1), then come back to clause 3, then go to clause 2, then clauses 4 and 5.
Do I have consensus from the group to start with subclause 3(1)?