That's not what I'm saying. I'm only telling committee members that they need to vote against clause 3 because by amending clause 2, we've done away with the idea of an RESP deduction limit. There's no point referring to one. We can leave the wording as it, but it would be meaningless.
Clause 3 states the following:
3. Paragraph (a) of the definition “excess amount” in subsection 204.9(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
By amending clause 2 and doing away with the carry-forward provision, the reference to “excess amount” becomes obsolete. We've said that the limit was $5,000 per year. If that amount isn't used one year, it is lost.