We will now resume the sitting.
Mr. Godin, you asked me to rule on an amendment’s admissibility. I did so. You asked to vote on whether to uphold the chair’s ruling. We will now do so, but I will first explain to you the reasons why I’ve come to this conclusion.
I am referring to page 541 of our famous green book, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017.
I’m referring to an amendment because that is indeed what is at issue. All right? In the quoted text, it refers to the House of Commons, but committees follow the same procedure.
An amendment should be so framed that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and internally consistent. An amendment is out of order, procedurally, if: it is irrelevant to the main motion (i.e., 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 substantial motion with notice); it raises a question substantially the same as one which the House has decided in the same session or conflicts with an amendment already agreed to; it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion;…
That is what guides us when presiding over a committee meeting dealing with an amendment’s admissibility.
I therefore repeat that the amendment moved by Mr. Serré to amend Mr. Beaulieu’s motion is in order. The vote was requested. I will not backtrack any further. We are moving on to the vote.
Madam Clerk, you have the floor.