Further to the point of order, I'd like to not challenge the chair directly just at this moment, but I think we need some explanation as to the advice that suggests changing the essence of what the royal recommendation for the bill was, which set a particular specific premium rate with respect to those who would qualify for certain benefits in Quebec and those for the rest of the country, which somehow could be amended without needing an expansion or a contraction of the royal recommendation.
Now, the portion that I quoted was quite clear, and I think I have it on pretty good authority that an amendment such as this infringes the financial issue of the crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge. It also talks about the fact that if you're going to change the premium rate by the amendment, you are doing something that is going to affect the general purpose and intent of the bill, how it is to be administered, how the charge is to be raised, and how it's to be made with respect to the EI account and general revenues, and that's the prerogative of the government.
So I think we need a pretty clear explanation with respect to that, and I would actually challenge any decision that would be contrary to the committee as a whole, because I don't buy that, quite frankly. So I think we need to have some better explanation. It's in order.