Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think the amendment in this case is certainly well intentioned. The only difficulty I see is that it changes the essence of the motion, in terms of broadening its scope.
Essentially it is then asking the government, working in collaboration and so on to develop and implement a plan to curtail the trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes. By not putting that qualification in there, it leaves it general in nature for all future purposes. The only thing that is being compelled vis-à-vis the Olympics is the timing of such plan and implementation.
This is really suggesting that the government, working with other governments, plan and implement this initiative prior to the opening of the 2010 Olympics.
It's relatively broad in its scope, and certainly it's well intentioned. But I don't know what implications that has. For example, is it in conflict with what we have already done in the recommendations of our comprehensive report on human trafficking?
Before agreeing to that amendment, I want to go back and take a look to see if in fact we have not already done that. Because I believe we had recommendations around curtailing the trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation.