My understanding, though, of this particular concept--and correct me if I'm wrong, please, members from the other side--is that it is a concept brought in by the opposition parties during the discussions. In fact, I think Mr. Proulx was leading that charge, in that he wanted the greenbelt to have some sort of significance as a terminology and some form of protection other than what it would have had as the bill was phrased originally. So this is actually a concept brought in by the government at the request of the opposition party.
This, of course, is the difficulty. If you're ruling it out of order, Mr. Chair, and even if we challenge it, obviously it's going to go back to the House, and the House, as it has done for another bill of ours recently, could sustain your ruling. Then we'd be back to the same place we were before. So I see no advantage in challenging the chair at this stage, especially having regard to what Mr. Proulx said.
Does Mr. Proulx or Monsieur Nadeau have some other suggestion in relation to this?