I am still trying to wrap my head around this. Why do you not simply vote against clause 4, instead of trying to amend it by removing, as I was saying earlier, the heart of the changes that all the witnesses who spoke in favour of Bill C-393 want, as does the New Democratic Party, which introduced the bill?
Why not just vote against clause 4? Why did you decide to move an amendment that would remove lines 15 to 18?