At the risk of sounding repetitive—but I guess this should be on the record—I think Mr. Scott's point is right. The spirit of the original act itself certainly illustrates throughout this about the offences caught here.
I guess basically we're arguing two amendments at once. All the offences as listed by amendment G-1, and there are many other offences that I looked here at that are omitted, seem to me to go against the spirit of what the original act was meant to do—by way of illustration, as Mr. Scott and others brought up, and as I've noticed throughout this: fraud over $5,000, and you name it.
I'm not a lawyer, but by way of clarification, regarding Mr. Del Mastro the original bill says “prosecuted by indictment”. Wasn't Mr. Del Mastro involved in a summary conviction, so that he therefore would have been outside of this regardless?
We're not talking about the specific case.