Not immediately, because this is going to lead to the same decision that I just made for the previous amendment.
The ruling is that this amendment is out of order, for the reasons you now know. I could go through the rationale again, but I think you've seen that this amendment would require the minister to obtain the authorization of a judge to make an order in certain circumstances, which, in the chair's opinion, is contrary to the scope and principle of the bill. Indeed, it is the chair's opinion that introducing such judicial authorization prior to orders is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill and, therefore, the amendment is out of order.