Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House will again consider the reasoned amendment put by the hon. member for Edmonton--Strathcona. Before the House resumes consideration of the amendment I would submit that it is out of order. The motion as it has been referred to says:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill S-23, an act to amend the Customs Act and to make related amendments to other acts--
So far, so good. However here is the problem. The amendment adds:
--since the principle of the bill fails to specifically and adequately address national security at Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities.
Pages 639 and 640 of Marleau and Montpetit, our procedural manual, deal with reasoned amendments. The manual makes it clear that a reasoned amendment:
--must be relevant and relate strictly to the bill being considered.
It must relate not to what is not in the bill but to the bill being considered. A reasoned amendment is not relevant, and I quote directly from M and M:
--if it relates to another bill; is intended to divide the bill; proposes that the bill be withdrawn and replaced by another bill; relates to the parent Act rather than to the amending bill; goes beyond the scope of the bill.
The last proposition is important in this case. Marleau and Montpetit goes on to state that:
It must not relate to particulars of the bill, if what is sought may be accomplished by amendments in committee.
The amendment before us opposes the bill because it asserts that the bill:
--fails to specifically and adequately address national security at Canada's borders with respect to terrorist activities.
That is clearly beyond the scope of the bill. If it were an issue for customs it would also be wrong because it would relate to the parent act, as I have just stated. I am glad the hon. member raised that as justification.
The wording of the amendment renders it out of order. It asserts that the bill specifically omits the matter, a matter which indicates the amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. The amendment defines itself as being out of order.
On the other hand, and in contradiction to the first assertion, the amendment claims the bill fails to address the matter adequately. If that were true the amendment would still be out of order on the grounds that the question of adequacy would be dealt with by a specific clause at a later stage, a case which I totally reject. In other words, if it were a matter of adequacy it could be dealt with in committee later and would therefore render the reasoned amendment out of order.
If security is specifically omitted from the bill, as the amendment asserts, an amendment is irrelevant because it is beyond the scope of the bill. If the amendment's second assertion is true, namely that security in the bill is dealt with but not adequately, the amendment is still out of order because it deals with details of the bill that may be corrected later.
This is not a matter of being fish or fowl. It is neither fish nor fowl. On both these grounds I respectfully submit to the Chair that the reasoned amendment is out of order and does not qualify.