I was pleasantly delighted to see this amendment in here, because it reduces the scope and power of the bill, to a certain extent, from how broad it originally was.
To hear that the Bloc actually wants to withdraw this right now actually gives me great concern. I know that my colleague, Mr. Blaney, will probably be speaking to this. I can't speak about the intentions of others on this committee, but it would seem to me to circumscribe the extent to which the law would apply.
We heard from many witnesses that the legislation is overarchingly broad and would have undoubtedly damaging consequences. So “to the extent required by federal Acts and regulations”, it would seem to me, on the cover, is a good notion. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that it doesn't matter. If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, we can call it something else, but the reality is that it's probably still a duck.
It appears to be a good amendment on a relatively flawed clause. I have a lot of concerns about clause 9, all three parts of it. Of course, the Liberals have an amendment to add a fourth subclause to this particular clause. I hope they're not going to withdraw their motion either.
Mr. Blaney, did you want to speak to this particular amendment?