Before calling motion No. 1 as it appears on the order paper the Chair might refer to the procedural aspects of the motions. After examining the motions proposed by hon. members I would like to suggest that motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 appear to be acceptable on procedural grounds, unless hon. members want to suggest that for one reason or another they are not.
Motions Nos. 5 and 7 appear to present some difficulty. I think that the hon. member who has moved them might agree that they have financial implications. However, it might be said that motion No. 5 to some extent covers the same ground as motion No. 6 which is sponsored by the minister, and of course motion No. 6 is covered by a recommendation. In these circumstances it may be that the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe would feel that the purpose which he seeks to achieve through his motion No. 5 would be realized under the terms of motion No. 6. But I would suggest, subject to any arguments that might be submitted by hon. members, that motions Nos. 5 and 7, because they have financial implications, could not be moved.
Motions Nos. 8 and 9 appear to be acceptable from a procedural point of view.
I might also add that it might be difficult to have any of these motions considered together. In the circumstances, because there is no clear link between any of these motions except perhaps Nos. 5 and 6, I would think we might proceed with them one at a time, with the Chair putting motion No. 1 so as to launch the debate on the motions. I would be pleased to hear the advice and obtain the guidance of hon. members on these several points.
Subtopic: FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN
Sub-subtopic: MEASURE TO PROVIDE BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF CHILDREN