That brings us to LIB-1, on page 5 of the bundle of documents provided.
Before we debate this amendment, it should be noted that if LIB-1 is proposed, LIB-2 cannot be, because it is identical.
Moreover, if LIB-1 is agreed to, amendments NDP-1 and CPC-3, on pages 7 and 8, cannot be proposed because of conflicting lines.
In the interest of consistency, I wish to point out to the committee that amendments LIB-1, LIB-2 and NDP-1 cover the same measures, but use different terminology. The words used differ from one amendment to the other, especially the English versions.
These amendments are also related to a number of subsequent amendments, some of which propose different definitions of the term “rétablissement”. Those are LIB-8, page 23, LIB-9, page 24, and DNP-4, page 26.
To recap, if LIB-1 is adopted, NDP-1 and CPC-3 cannot be proposed subsequently. Further, in other amendments that will be proposed, different terms are used for “rétablissement” and “restoring”. There is a difference between “re-establishing” and “restoring”.
That said, are there any comments on LIB-1?
Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.