Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The original interpretation of the Speaker was regarding a question of privilege, and I would submit that this is quite a different thing. The motion that has been submitted is within the framework of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. This is our bible procedurally, and I refer you to page 1229. It states:
It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgement as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration. The editors may likewise alter a sentence to render it more readable but may not go so far as to change its meaning.
The motion submitted by the member for Winnipeg Centre, I would submit, is in order because in Standing Order 67, we have the ability to put forward debatable motions that “may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the correctness of its records.”
In terms of both the question of privilege, which we understand the Speaker has ruled on, and the motion itself, I would submit that the motion is clearly in order.