There are two important things, and there's no disrespect to our esteemed guests here.
One principle the committee must accept as we enter into this debate is that the bill, in principle, has been accepted by the House of Commons. What the committee has been charged with is making refinements to the bill, not dissuading itself from the true intention of the bill.
We were willing to entertain this conversation, even though I suggest that further on, this is all assuming the passage of a government amendment that we haven't seen and that, I will argue, goes to the very heart of the bill and changes the nature and heart of the bill. We've had consistent rulings in the environment committee and other committees of Parliament that you simply can't do that. Committees are masters of their own fate—to a point. The “to a point” is that when we are given the task of addressing a bill, we accept it on principle, which the House of Commons has—on division, I might add.
The debate that we're getting into now and the allocation of where the designation goes makes assumptions of fundamental changes to the bill.