Yes, Mr. Cullen, what you're arguing is that there wouldn't be additional money if amendment 16 were to pass. I've ruled that amendment 16 isn't in order because the introduction of additional security in the form of contributions is a new concept that's outside and beyond the scope of Bill C-20 and therefore is inadmissible.
So you're basing your argument for saying there wouldn't be any additional spending required on the condition that amendment 16 would pass, which isn't going to happen because it isn't in order.