This is not really a point of order but a point of clarification. It's not at all calling into doubt the vote that just took place. It's just a clarification on your actual ruling.
Why did you not rule that it was out of order because it was touching on a section of the Criminal Code that Bill C-2 was not amending? Your rulings on the previous amendments that had been presented were on the basis that they dealt with a section that Bill C-2 did not amend, and therefore were beyond the scope. That was not the wording you used in ruling this particular amendment out of order.
I'm just confused on that, and I'd like some clarification.