I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Gatineau, but I will now rule on the admissibility of the amendment. Then I will give the floor back to the hon. member so that she can continue her speech.
I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention and the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for his very helpful response.
I trust they, and the House, will understand if, in the interests of time and given that this is the last hour of debate for this item, I do not exhaustively review the precedents they cited but rather summarize the situation as I see it.
The hon. parliamentary secretary raised two basic objections to the procedural acceptability of the amendment. First, he argued, citing various authorities and precedents that I will not review here, that it went beyond the scope of the original motion to introduce a new substantive concept that had to be the subject of a separate motion, presented with due notice. Second, he contended that the form of the motion is defective in that its wording offends the principle of the Crown's prerogative in spending since it would force the government to expend funds.
Let me, like the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, deal with the second argument first. I agree with the hon. member's reading of Motion No. 153, namely that the motion suggests a course of action to the government and in no way obligates it to that action. Therefore, I see no grounds to refuse the amendment because it offends the spending prerogative.
Let me turn to the matter of the scope of Motion No.153. First, let me quote from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice at pages 452 and 453:
A motion in amendment arises out of debate and is proposed either to modify the original motion in order to make it more acceptable to the House—
It continues:
An amendment must be relevant to the main motion. It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning and intent.
The question the Chair must ask itself is: does the proposed amendment refine the original motion while remaining within its scope?
In the present circumstance, I confess that there appears to be compelling grounds for and against the acceptability of the amendment.
If one considers the motion as a whole, one can argue that it deals with recognition of the contribution of firefighters in a symbolic manner, specifically a monument. Looking at Motion No.153 that way, one might well conclude that because the amendment goes beyond the symbolic and introduces the idea of a benefit to survivors, it should be ruled out of order.
Alternatively, though, one can look at Motion No.153, and see a motion with three distinct sections, (a), (b) and (c). Reading the motion this way, it can be argued that the proposed amendment takes the notion of recognition in section (a) and explains it further by specifying that such recognition will be in the form of a benefit. Section (b), respecting the monument, states support for a separate proposal by the Canadian Fallen Firefighters. Section (c) informs the other place of the House's decision.
I have carefully considered the question and I have made my decision against the backdrop of the efforts that the House has been making, notably through recent amendments to the rules on private members' business, to allow every private member to bring an idea before the House and have the House pronounce itself for or against the idea.
Accordingly, I am inclined to conclude that the amendment further defines the idea of recognition of the effort made by fallen firefighters. Consequently, the amendment is receivable.
We will now return to the debate. The hon. member for Gatineau still has five minutes.