Chair, this substantive amendment has the same problem as the subamendment that was attempted before, which you ruled out of order. On page 541, under “The Process of Debate” in chapter 12, it says distinctly, “An amendment should be so framed that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and internally consistent.” It says what's out of order. I would say that this amendment makes this motion that we've been debating not consistent anymore. It introduces a whole bunch of new ideas and entirely new subject matters for consideration, some of which, I would submit to you, Chair, are out of order, because they are out of the scope of the committee's work.
I would also draw your attention to the three bullets on page 541. Some of the substance of this “is irrelevant to the main motion” and “it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice”.
I submit to you, Chair, that is the case with this amendment.
I also would raise this question. It's substantially the same one that we have dealt with—a subamendment that you ruled out of order as well. I think it's contrary in some parts to the main motion, which was to invite two ministers to talk about the Canadian experience.
I would also submit to you that it also violates chapter 20 under the committee's work sections on what is an allowable amendment that can be submitted through the process. This is an entirely new motion. It can't be ruled in order, Chair.
I would like a ruling from you.