Thank you for that. As chair, I'm going to rule that it's inadmissible and I'm going to give you the Reader's Digest version why.
This amendment proposes to create a new parameter whereby the presumption cannot exist unless it is first proven that the person is living “on the avails of the exploitation”. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states, again 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, the inclusion of this parameter is contrary to the basic premise of the presumption contained in clause 2 and is therefore inadmissible.
Is there any further comment on that? No? Okay.
Now we'll go to amendment Liberal-3.
Would you like to move it, Mr. Casey?