Thank you.
Procedure does not allow for debate on the amendment of Ms. Falk because I have to first rule on whether it's admissible before we can go into debate, so at this time I thank Ms. Gazan for her comments.
Bill C-318 introduces a new type of special benefit, an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The current amendment attempts to create another benefit, whereby an indigenous child could be placed with a claimant different from the child's parents, following different processes from the provincial adoption process as stated in the bill, and the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:
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, the amendment proposes a new scheme, one that imposes a new charge on the public treasury, and as such it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.
Ms. Gazan, there's no debate. You can challenge my ruling.