It's a really good argument from Monsieur Petit. I recognize it. As a lawyer, I think it's very appropriate. But it still breaks the existing rules. So as much as I don't have a problem with your ruling this way, it's wrong, and we need to....
I suppose it should come from the justice committee. There should be a recommendation coming out of this committee at some point. We should look at this and make a recommendation to the procedure and House affairs committee to change this rule. It is simply too rigid. As much as we come up with these arguments, this is a semantic argument.
The rule is very clear. If it's not within the scope of the legislation, or if you're going to a section that has not been mentioned in the bill--private member's or government--you can't change it. That's the rule, and it has been rigidly enforced by our Speakers consistently, Mr. Chair. So as much as it's appropriate....
This is a classic example. We need this amendment. These amendments to the code will not function properly without it. But if you look at the history of the way those rules have been interpreted, we can't do this.
So again, the point I'm simply trying to make at this stage is go ahead and do it here, and I hope you get it through the House. But the committee, at some point in the near future, I hope, should address this point and make a recommendation to the committee, and I suppose to the House as a whole.
Thank you.