I would respectfully challenge your ruling.
I think one of the things to understand is that this bill does provide for pandemic benefits of a type, inadequate as they may be, and this amendment is also about ensuring that those future benefits, if paid out to seniors in a like situation—say, under the Canada worker lockdown benefit—are not included in the calculation for their guaranteed income supplement next year.
The topic of the bill, as has been the case for the entire proceeding since it began, has been pandemic benefits. This amendment, while it does apply to previous pandemic amendments.... I was just up defending the idea that this bill should be kept together after all, because there is an important overarching theme of the bill in terms of how we restart our recovery, but this amendment does actually apply to the benefits listed in the bill as well. I think it's not quite fair to say that it's out of scope or that it doesn't legitimately touch on the issues already raised within the bill.
It is for that reason that I would contest your ruling, Mr. Chair, and ask that the committee have the opportunity to have a recorded division, if and when there's no further discussion on this, in order to test the will of the committee in respect to your ruling.