There are just a number of factors here. On the proposed amendment, I owe it to you to read out the following, because it is a substantive amendment. You can then react to that.
There are two things I want to say.
First of all, whether it was the original NDP-1 or the proposed change, the amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements in the preamble. In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the following is stated on page 774:
In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble
—you'll recall this from Bill C-29—
—is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure the uniformity of the English and French versions.
Based on that, in the opinion of the chair—I'm doing what conventional chairs will do—the proposed amendment is substantive and has not been rendered necessary by amendments to the bill itself. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible. That would apply to the proposed change as well.
You can react now, but first let me finish one other point that I would like to make.
Just so you know, if we make an amendment, it will of course have to go through the House of Commons to report stage and then to third reading, and then it goes to the Senate. It will have to go back to the Senate, because it's an amendment. Even though it originally came from the Senate, it has to go back to the Senate. An amendment has been made to it. Just be cognizant of the fact that January 4 is not very far away.
With that, the floor is open.
Go ahead, Mr. Zimmer.