So moved. All right.
Well, it's an interesting way of getting there, but I have to rule on whether the amendment is admissible or not, given the preamble and the clarification.
Clause 18 of Bill C-44 states that benefits can be paid to a major attachment claimant who is a parent of a critically ill child. Amendment LIB-5 proposes to extend these benefits to a minor attachment claimant who has 420 hours or more of insurable employment.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 to 768:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
In the opinion of the chair, LIB-5 represents an extension of the categories of claimants to whom benefits would be available and would seek to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendment LIB-5 is inadmissible.
We have NDP-7. Perhaps you can identify it for me in the bill.
If you wish to move that amendment, Mr. Sullivan, you can read it or just simply move it as we have it.