Can we take our places again, please?
We are back in session. I apologize for taking so long, but we had to go back 18 years with respect to the admissibility of a similar item. It's on page 898 in Marleau and Montpetit, under “Similar Items”:
In a 1989 ruling, Speaker Fraser clarified that for two or more items to be substantially the same, they must have the same purpose and they have to achieve their same purpose by the same means. Thus, there could be several bills addressing the same subject, but if their approaches to the issue are different, the Chair could deem them to be sufficiently distinct.
The question has arisen whether a private Member's bill which is similar to a government bill may be placed on the Order Paper and debated.
In this case, it's the other way around.
The authorities and past rulings show that there is nothing to prevent such similar items from being placed on the Order Paper simultaneously.
The private member's bill in question is a stand-alone piece of legislation. The amendment here is in a different bucket, if you will. It's in the context of a larger piece of legislation. In the chair's view, that makes it distinct and it can be debated.
Resuming debate, we'll go to Mr. Cullen.