Okay. Thank you all for your comments.
I'm going to save everybody the difficulty. The chair has to make a ruling here, having heard from all quarters. I'm of the view that the proposed amendment is in order, and my reason, which I may not have to give but I'm going to put on the record, is that the first section where we've made an amendment and where the bill makes a change is related to an analogous procedure in the subsequent section. The bill changes the procedure in the first section, and it's been described here that failure to change the procedure in the subsequent section would be regarded as an omission and would present an inconsistency.
I'm prepared to recognize the connection, the relationship between the two sections and to find that the amendment is in order for that reason, and that it's not outside the scope of the bill—the scope involving the particular procedure involved. I'm going to make that ruling, and if members feel otherwise, the chair can be challenged, but I leave that to you.
That's my ruling: it's admissible. And I'm prepared to put the question unless something else pops up before I do that.
Mr. Dykstra.