I appreciate the sentiment behind Mr. Comartin's remarks. The big issue is how you define and implement “scope”. The implementation of those rules falls to the chair in the House and all the chairs of all the committees that deal with legislation.
If, in executing and implementing those provisions, a chair is of the view that there is a tangible connection that allows something to come within the scope of the bill, and the chair looks around the table and sees that all the parties support it, and one considers the costs--real, imputed or otherwise--of having to do a one-off, maybe a miscellaneous statutes amendment to the Criminal Code to fix up something that was omitted during passage of a bill, something that was in one way or another connected to the bill, then it gets easier for the chairs to define the scope of the bill as having some edges that aren't quite as hard as you've articulated and that you properly say the chair has been fairly rigid in interpreting.
I'm just going to guess that from time to time the Speaker in the House appreciates the flexibility of chairs and committees around the House in helping him to give an interpretation of scope of the bill that works for our electors. And in this case I see a connection. I'm going to accept that the reason we have to amend the form is that we've just amended the bill.
So I'm going to rule it in order. I'm going to put the amendment.
I thank members for their comments.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])