Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the problem is not with just clause 2, the title has now changed in the French version. It has probably not changed in the meaning but maybe the grammar. Probably the spirit of the law is still there. However, I do have a problem not so much with this particular clause but as a non-legal person, you have given me a bill that I would never be able to understand as long as I don't go to school and learn the legal language. However, what I usually expect for most amendments to acts, including Bill 5, are clear, explanatory notes.
It seems that the actual bill explains better than the explanatory notes. For example, in those notes what the French version change in the title really means and how it was read is explained. As it now reads, it doesn't indicate if there is any change in the meaning or in the spirit or in grammar. I think that is what Mr. Zoe's concern is. I know we are legislators, but in the spirit and principle of what our people want and for the purposes of protection and service, I think we should have better explanatory notes. Maybe in the next session when we are dealing with these bills. Qujannamiik.