Actually, I would just like to intervene, because I know you were a few minutes late arriving today. I would just like to clarify how we got where we are.
At the beginning of the meeting, I had ruled that this amendment inadmissible, not on the basis of merit but on the basis of legislative procedures. It goes beyond the scope of the bill.
At that time, my ruling was challenged and was overturned by a majority of the committee members, so we are proceeding to discuss NDP-1, the amendment that is before us. That is where we are.
The argument has been, in my view, a little disjointed this afternoon because sometimes the discussion is on the merits of some of the notions and concepts in this, and sometimes the discussion has to do with the technical admissibility of it. As you know, if it's not admissible that argument is primary. It would only follow that we would discuss the merits of it afterwards.
That may give you a flavour of the discussion we've had today.