Thank you very much.
The Chair is prepared to rule should there be no further discussion on this.
Mr. Easter, thank you for bringing the issue up. I think if the situation were such that the bill were dramatically changed and/or the perspective of the entire bill was changed to such an extent that it would actually reflect something that is different from what was originally proposed, certainly the chair would agree with you. On this particular group of amendments that have come forward, it's the chair's opinion that the principles and the perspective of the original intent of the bill are respected at this point, so I would overrule your objection at this point and I thank you for your interjection.
We will now proceed to the study of the bill if there are no further questions. Seeing none, then we will now go to the line-by-line clause study.
(On clause 1)
We have a government amendment right off the bat on number one. You have a copy of it. It is 6494493 and the chair would note as well that there is a conflict with NDP-1 and NDP-2. The chair would also note that if the government amendment is approved, then neither NDP-1 or NDP-2 could be proceeded with. They would have to be dealt with as a subsequent amendment to an amendment.
Are we clear with that, colleagues? I'm glad you're clear because the chair is a little fuzzy on the issue, but I think I'm comfortable enough to be able to move forward.
Shall the government amendment as presented carry?
Excuse me, Mr. Norlock?