Well, I'm going to give my ruling.
I want to start this ruling by quoting from House of Commons Procedure and Practice. This is from page 770. I'll try to do this slowly for the sake of our interpreters. It says:
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.
If you read the bill, you will see that Bill C-5 amends several acts for the sole purpose of creating a new legal holiday. That was prescribed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Specifically, call to action number 80 is what people refer to and what this bill refers to, as a legal concept.
This amendment proposes to remove the concept of a legal holiday and replace it with a symbolic holiday. As you know, after second reading, once we accept the bill in principle and scope, we cannot go back on that, as the House by a majority voted for it.
This amendment goes beyond the principle and scope of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible. In my opinion, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill.
The ruling also applies to other amendments, by the same token. I'll use the numbers that are ascribed, in the top right-hand corner of the sheets that you have, folks. The ruling applies to amendments CPC-2, CPC-3 and CPC-7, since they are consequential in what they plan to do and are similar in purpose to CPC-1.
Monsieur Rayes.