Mr. Speaker, I would obviously argue that the hon. member is in error. In reality, the amendment does not do the opposite as he said.
I would refer the Speaker to page 453 of Marleau and Montpetit. I believe that an amendment must be relevant to the main motion. Clearly it states:
It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning and intent.
Page 175 of Beauchesne's states:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.
The main purpose of the main motion is to fix the date for the resumption of the House of Commons after its adjournment on June 23, today. That is what the motion is doing. It is to have Parliament and the House of Commons resume Monday, June 27. It says that right in the motion.
I would argue that it is not the opposite to suggest that it should resume on September 12. We are dealing with a difference in dates. The motion says that the House upon its adjournment tonight at midnight will resume on Monday, June 27. My amendment says that it should resume on September 12. That is hardly the opposite. It is just a difference in dates.
I contend that the amendment offers an alternative proposition. It offers the date of September 12 without conditions. It does not enlarge upon the main motion or introduce any foreign matter. Therefore, the amendment is in order.