I also understand Ms. Barnes' position here, as she sought information often from the same source, Mr. Lee.
So I'll go through the ruling here now.
Bill C-9 makes just one substantive change to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. It provides that conditional sentences will not be available for offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for 10 years or more.
The amendment proposes to replace this with an alternate scheme. The offences to which the amendment would apply are in some cases outside of what is covered by the bill.
In addition, proposed subsection (2) of the amendment allows for the exercise of discretion, which is not in keeping with the principle of Bill C-9.
On page 654, Marleau and Montpetit state: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”
I must therefore rule the amendment inadmissible, as it introduces an alternate scheme, which goes against the principle and beyond the scope of the bill.