We now have two amendments in front of us, beginning with BQ-1, which I am going to rule out of order.
As I'm sure Monsieur Bouchard is aware, and as the legislative clerk indicated to him before, if your previous amendment did not pass--BQ-1.1--then this one will not stand. The reason this cannot stand is that the amendments make a substantive change to the interpretive clause, clause 2, by adding another paragraph after subclause 2(4). That paragraph would be subclause 2(5) and would be substantively additional to the interpretive clause. So I'm going to rule amendment BQ-1 out of order.
Thank you for proposing that, and thank you for consulting with the legislative clerk, who I know indicated that to you before, as well.
We now will go to the second amendment I am going to rule out of order, which is the amendment the Liberals have just proposed. This amendment is out of order, because it also substantially amends the interpretive clause, clause 2. You can propose amendments to clause 2, but they cannot be substantive in nature.
In Marleau and Montpetit, it states that the “interpretation clause of a bill”--in other words, clause 2--“is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill. In addition, an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading must always relate to the bill and not go beyond the scope of or be contrary to the principle of the bill”.
This amendment is out of order for that reason, because it adds a substantive element to clause 2 and would recognize a body established by the Canadian Parliament or by another province. This is too substantive an addition to the interpretation clause.
I also want to point out to members at this time that it's important whenever we're considering clause-by-clause that you consult with the legislative clerk, because he would be able to give you forewarning that your amendment will be ruled out of order.
Without further ado, we have Mr. Garneau. Go ahead.