I don't think there's going to be a unanimous willingness, but I'm asking you to look to the advice of the legislative clerk and the clerk about how to best proceed with these issues. In my view, they would have been dealt with together, as we have done with other groupings; these five items should have been grouped together so that we could have made all the points my colleagues from the other two parties have made so far and that the government in fact has made. Rather than repeat ourselves on issues that are similar or consequential, we should deal with them as one.
The best way to have started—I made a proposal—would have been amendment G-3. But now we're moving from items that are withdrawn or going to be changed, and then going back to amendment G-3 to reverse ourselves on an item, such as that, as Mr. Reinhardt says, “an act of Parliament” means ATIP. It doesn't mean “an” act of Parliament, meaning whichever one someone wants to choose. Quite frankly, that's problematic from the standpoint of a rational approach to making amendments to this bill.