Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I do not doubt the good intentions of Mr. Moore in proposing this amendment, but I have to say that I just do not see that anything that's listed here is covered by this bill.
The second thing I would say about this one is that there is a principle of statutory interpretation that's colloquially known as “inclusion implies exclusion”, and that's the danger of any list being put in, because those not listed, it seems to imply, would not enjoy the same protections as those listed.
For that reason, I would oppose this amendment.
However, I'd like a ruling, Madam Chair, on whether this is in order, given the fact that we have passed the previous amendment, NDP-4, which has amended this section. There is no longer an (a) and a (b) to which you could add a (c) in this bill, so I wonder if this amendment, given that we previously adopted an amendment that has altered this section, is actually in order.
Thank you.