The ruling I'm making at this moment applies to PV-1 and BQ-2, as they are identical.
The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification to add the year 2025 as a milestone year in the interpretation clause. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 773:
The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause. 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.
In my opinion, the proposed amendment is a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause. Since no amendment to the bill has been adopted to justify amending the definition of “milestone year”, I rule PV-1 inadmissible, and BQ-2 inadmissible at the same time.
Go ahead, Madam Clerk.