I'd be happy to do that.
Amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7 are consequential to amendment NDP-3, so I suggest we talk about those for a minute, and then go back to what somebody has labelled amendment NDP-3.1.
With respect to amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7, amendment NDP-3 was passed, and we think that was a serious mistake. Be that as it may, what it has done--and I'm not going to re-debate it-- again--is tie the hands of the Governor in Council with respect to making appointments.
We're not so much concerned with the removal of currently serving officers and NCMs, because there are lot of retired folks who could fill that bill just as well. What we are concerned with is the limiting of retired service members--officers or NCMs--to 40%. That is a huge mistake. It is tying the hands of the Governor in Council. It is not going to be very workable at all.
All that said--I just say that from the point of view of getting it on the record--I recognize that they are consequential and linked to amendment NDP-3, so I suggest that we just call the vote. We'll be voting against amendments NDP-4, NDP-5, NDP-6, and NDP-7 on principle, because we think amendment NDP-3 was wrong, but I understand that it will pass.
Just to take the chair off the hook, I just want to make a clarification. If it's a tie vote, how does the chair vote on this? Because I'm only seeing five across....