Thank you, Ms. Duncan.
On the advice of the legislative clerk, I'll read the reason for my ruling that this is inadmissible.
The amendment seeks to broaden beyond Her Majesty in right of Canada and the province the category of actors who can institute proceedings to recover a loss of non-use value relating to a public resource. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading or a bill at report stage is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
I agree with that advice given by the clerk.
I realize that we have allowed proposed amendments to be moved and debated and voted on that do broaden the scope. In this particular amendment it specifically says only Her Majesty in the right of Canada or a province. In the others it had already broadened it out by saying “or other persons”. That allows us to debate those and to vote on them. In this case, it is inadmissible.