Mr. Chair, before speaking to the amendment itself, much like the official opposition critic, I would like to take some latitude to provide some brief comments. I will keep my comments within a minute or a minute and a half.
I did want to express some disappointment in that as you are aware, the Liberal Party opposed sending this bill to committee, because we believe there are significant flaws in the legislation. We're not happy with the manner in which the government has proceeded. It has not listened, not only to what the Liberal Party has been suggesting, but also to a number of people who made presentations in regard to the need for amendments. In that sense we're quite disappointed.
We have brought forward a number of amendments. As the chair has pointed out, some of them are quite similar to the New Democratic Party amendments. It's a positive reflection when we have two opposition parties thinking alike in two different locations, recognizing the importance of some of the amendments that we're bringing forward.
The issue at hand with this particular amendment is to ensure that for those who are obligated to attend and answer questions, it is limited to the information reasonably required for that application. That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of bringing forward this particular amendment.
I would pose a question to you, Mr. Chair. As we go through this, when you say there are two amendments of a similar nature, are you going to be dealing with them both as one vote?