Just so you understand where I'm coming from, what's providing my rule-making process is in chapter 16 of O’Brien and Bosc, “The Legislative Process”. Starting on page 768, first of all on the form of an amendment: “An amendment is also out of order if it is moved at the wrong place in the bill, if it is tendered in a spirit of mockery, or if it is vague or trifling“.
Going on to page 769:
The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill. In addition, an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading must always relate to the bill and may neither exceed the scope of nor be contrary to the principle of the bill. This rule does not apply to a bill that has been referred to a committee before second reading.
So in this case this does apply to the scope of the bill, it is not exceeding it, it's providing clarification to the language that's already in the bill, so I am going to say it is admissible.
Ms. Duncan.