Before we get to the next motion, because we're now in between motions, can I ask the chair to please be more specific about his rulings when he rules something to be inadmissible? Merely reading page 766 of the green book does not give us—on this side, anyway—the detailed rationale behind why a particular amendment falls outside the scope. For example, the previous amendment would not have caused any more spending by the government and would not have changed the intent of the legislation, which was to provide a certain number of weeks of leave. It merely extended the ability of the individual to have some flexibility.
I'm not quite grasping how that's outside the scope, so for the next one, could we please be a little more detailed in the explanation of why? We don't seem to have any other opportunity to do that.