Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The consequences are no consequences, in my opinion. I just thought that it might be redundant. I'm not opposed to the amendment. It was merely a suggestion: I thought our analyst might be able to help.
I'm back again to our legislative clerk. This issue has come up over and over again in the bill. I've been sitting waiting for constructive amendments from those who have raised it. Regrettably, this is the first time there's been a constructive amendment. It's regrettable that a constructive amendment wasn't made earlier. Because the same issue has been raised and was raised previously, it seems to me to be the will of the committee to want to limit the provision to Canadian-registered and potentially -controlled entities. That would include NGOs and would include associations and corporations.
If that is the case, it seems logical to me that the first category of allowed changes—to the interpretation—would be the logical way to do it, because at this stage we can't go back to make the whole bill consistent.
I guess I will be pursuing that further. It's regrettable that we have this convoluted process, which I've never run into before, for reaching consensus on important legislation, but we are stuck with the convoluted process we have. This is one aspect I really don't fully understand, and so I would like to find out more about that first category, concerning when you can change the interpretation clause, if it is important to the—I forget the way you described it—clarification of the provision. To me, if the majority so voted, or have an intent to want to change this clause, then it would make sense for consistency throughout the bill to have it the same, and that's our intent. Certainly, I would be happy to have that intent.
The most sensible and logical way to do that is to define “entity” so that it is consistent throughout. But I'm at your will as to what is possible within the system. I would rather that we don't pass this amendment if that then constrained us such that we can't define “entity” because we have already defined it in one clause. I'm trying to avoid that situation. If we're going to just keep saying the same phrase again, and we would like it to apply to the previous provision, and you can't go back....
I guess I'm seeking your counsel.