Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will go on the record as saying I don't really have a perspective one way or another on Mr. MacGregor's amendment. When I look at the entire work that has been done on this bill, I think the intent and the spirit of what Mr. Lawrence was trying to do are laudable, as I've said in the past. I think it is flawed in the sense that it didn't include amendments around the types of activities and equipment that are in the definition of the Greenhouse Gas Pricing Pollution Act. That is part of the fatal flaw of this particular piece.
Would Mr. MacGregor have any comments on that broader...? I see where he's trying to go with the 10 years to try to find and strike a balance between technology getting caught up to where we're at and the idea that we want to continue to move on climate change. Does he recognize, and does he sit where I sit on some of the concerns regarding the definitions of farming activity and of machinery that were not really addressed and that, of course, can't be addressed because we're already at this point in the game, so to speak?