Okay.
As it's consistent with an earlier ruling on NDP-1 and consistent with House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 771, which I used when we discussed NDP-1, it is out of order because it refers back to the parent document, which isn't before us right now.
In addition to that, with that logic, CPC-8 and CPC-9 also become inadmissible because they are consequential to CPC-7.
I agree with Mr. Spengemann. Unfortunately, CPC-7 is out of order.
Although we might have a discussion on our hands, which we could certainly take outside of what we're trying to do here today, I find it interesting that CPC-7 could have been introduced into a previous bill. Bill C-71 was very similar to the one we're doing now, which isn't just by coincidence, I guess.
I know you're going to want to respond to that, so it's over to you.