He's moved amendment LIB-8, and I think I've already said that my previous ruling applies to LIB-8.
If I didn't say LIB-8, my ruling will be the same, essentially, in that it infringes upon the financial initiative of the crown and is inadmissible for the reasons previously stated.
We will go to amendment LIB-9. Could you identify that in the bill for me?
Again, Mr. Cuzner, it's a similar premise there. Did you move LIB-9?