I might as well put it on the record, Mr. Chair—although your rulings have been running in a different direction—that I cannot see how we can possibly consider that reducing the ambit of the word “resident” to exclude certain persons now is not a substantive change to the act. The act as it came to us included residents, in my submission, whether they were Canadian citizens or permanent residents or non-permanent residents.
Now, Mr. Chair, this amendment proposes to remove from certain residents of Canada all the supposed rights that are guaranteed in the act. How can that not be a substantive amendment? If it is a substantive amendment, where is the amendment to some other provision that justifies it, and how does it not fundamentally change the nature of the act and therefore exceed the scope of the act?
Once again, I ask you to rule this amendment out of order.