Again, I appreciate it.
There are two things. One is ministerial accountability, which I know the government has a certain amount of keenness on, that is, knowing where the lines of authority are and who's essentially holding the bag for decisions that get made.
Second is that this amendment is contingent upon and assumes the passing, further on, of other amendments the government has suggested, which I, as the mover of the bill, am opposed to.
I go back to my recommendation, particularly when one looks at G-7 in terms of an amendment. G-5, G-6, and others are somewhat contingent upon whether G-7, as an amendment, lives or dies. We're having a debate about something that's yet to come, because the essence of what the government is attempting to do to this bill—and we have some arguments around G-7—happen later. It feels like we're going to have to return to clause 2, depending on what happens further on in clause 3.