Okay.
All right, so then we will go to amendment NDP-5. Can you identify that for me? NDP-5 relates to page 6.
Move NDP-5, and I'll indicate what it says. It asks:
That Bill C-44, in clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 6 with the following:
“(2), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 104 weeks to which he or she is entitled, or
(ii) in the case of leave under subsection (3), on the day on which the employee has taken the last of the 52 weeks to which he or she is entitled.”
This amendment would relate to the flexibility of being able to take those leaves, and I'm advised again that this particular amendment is out of order. Clause 6 of Bill C-44 states that leave of absence ends 104 weeks after the day of the death of a child occurs or 52 weeks after the day on which the disappearance occurs. Amendment NDP-5 proposes that these periods be 104 weeks or 52 weeks, notwithstanding these restrictions in the bill.
Again, House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 766: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, amendment NDP-5 represents an extension of the period during which the leave of absence may be taken, which is beyond the scope of the bill and therefore inadmissible.