Thank you very much.
I appreciate the discussion all around, but I don't hear anything that would change the essence of what I have to say.
With the advice that I've received, I will give my ruling.
This bill, Bill C-34, amends the Criminal Code to require that a court shall make an order in form 52 with regard to a person sentenced to a designated offence, or a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, requiring the person to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for the applicable period. This amendment proposes to allow the court to exercise discretion and to not make that order if it is satisfied that certain conditions have been met.
Now, if we look at House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 654 it says, “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.”
In my opinion, the introduction of a concept of discretion is contrary to the principle of Bill C-34. Therefore, I rule this inadmissible.
You cannot discuss that. Once the chair has made a ruling, there's--