I need another coffee before we get into these technical points.
What I'd like to ascertain is....I understand what this subamendment is doing now, and I think I understand what the motion as amended does. It places a restriction on what has already been passed, correct?
I guess I would ask, is there a more...? It seems to me we're confusing two matters in the same motion. I'm feeling negative energy vibes from the law clerk table, because whenever we confuse two matters in the same amendment, it can sometimes lead to confusion in the legislation. Is there a more elegant way for us to achieve what Ms. Kayabaga originally proposed with the subamendment? There seems to be a consensus emerging to delete the remaining substantive parts of this amendment.
I might look to the law clerk for advice on that, as well. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it. To be clear, I agree, and it's the reason we supported the last subamendment proposed by Ms. Kayabaga, which was to clarify what happened in the first instance. What I think is happening now is that we are amending the rest of the motion, so that it doesn't do what it was originally supposed to do. I'm wondering whether it should all be defeated, and then we can put that clarification in a different way.
If I'm misunderstanding, I'm happy to be corrected. I just want to know what I am voting on?