Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I apologize first to my colleague for interrupting him. I do so because the previous intervention from the Bloc Québécois was out of order.
The proposed amendment that would change the words of the motion from “take note of” to “condemn” is out of order, Mr. Speaker, because it changes the nature of the original motion and indeed goes beyond the scope of the original motion.
In reference to this I draw your attention to Beauchesne's, paragraph 579, on page 176 which states:
(1) An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
As well, in support of the point I am making, I draw attention to Marleau and Montpetit, page 453, which states:
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.
Clearly the amendment does not do that. Marleau and Montpetit further states:
An amendment is out of order procedurally, if:
it is not relevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign matter to the main motion or exceeds the scope of the motion, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice)--
None of these conditions having been met, the amendment is out of order, Mr. Speaker.