Regarding Mr. Jean's proposal to go back and affect some of the parts of Bill C-30 that deal with definitions, if you'll notice, in the ones from the NDP that we stood before, we made a number of amendments to restore a number of the pollution definitions in CEPA that Bill C-30 actually jeopardized.
We heard from a number of witnesses that when Bill C-30 started to tamper with those definitions, it very much limited the scope of government action. That was not something we were interested in.
So while I would imagine he's trying to make a friendly suggestion here, going back into the definitions portion is a whole new conversation.
My only comment, to follow up with Mr. Bigras, is that I think the intention of his amendment is good. I just want to make sure that what I'm hearing from Mr. Moffet is that this doesn't, in any way that was not intended, start to muddy the waters a bit on what government is meant to do research on.
I don't suspect that was Mr. Bigras' intention. I want to hear from Mr. Moffet if that's what I'm to understand his comment on the amendment was. Was he saying that if you make this type of push through Bill C-30 and amend it in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it then somehow restricts or limits government's work and research on other things by defining it suddenly?