The Chair is ready to rule on the admissibility of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
I may say the Chair has very serious concerns that the amendment is out of order. I refer hon. members to citation 568 of Beauchesne's sixth edition wherein it states:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
The amendment that is proposed by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford is relevant to the bill in its first part, but in its second part it would tend to lead to debate on the question of attendance records of the Senate, which, while possibly of interest to many hon. members, is not relevant to Bill S-16 that is currently before the House.
I also draw the hon. member's attention to citation 666 of Beauchesne's sixth edition—and I know that the whip of the official opposition is familiar with this citation—which states:
There are three types of amendments that may be proposed at the second reading stage of a bill. These are:
-
the hoist (eg. three months, six months).
-
the reasoned amendment.
-
the referral of the subject-matter to a committee.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford fails to meet any one of those requirements. Accordingly I must rule the amendment out of order.