Mr. Chairman, I have two points.
First, there is no legal precedent, but there are precedents contained in Marleau and Montpetit. In this period of your life, you seem to be more progressive than conservative, which gives me great pleasure.
However, it is clear that if we adopt an amendment which exceeds the scope of the bill, we would create a precedent which might be referred to at other meetings. It would not bind the Speaker of the House of Commons, who would certainly reverse your decision because he would not want such a precedent.
Mr. Chairman, the issue is, rather, should we discuss this now or wait until we go into clause-by-clause and continue our meeting with the official from the Department of Justice? In theory, we cannot entertain an amendment, because we are still not at the clause-by-clause study stage.