Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There always are these questions of whether there is a substantive change in the original intent of the motion.
The motion as presented to the House was very clearly that there be a sale of property for $1 and that the ownership is going to transfer from the National Capital Commission to the hospital.
The amendment being proposed is a totally different arrangement, where the ownership is not going to change. That is different. The whole concept of leasing or continuing to own and to lease is much different from actually selling.
I believe that the amendment is out of order, simply because it is a substantive change from what was presented to members and on which we have debated.