It probably goes without saying, because I've said it before, but I hope everyone appreciates that this amendment would introduce another inconsistency into this bill. I don't know if we've reached it anywhere else yet, as I haven't had time to look....
Oh, yes, in clause 10, for example, we've referred to just “entities”, so now we're creating yet another inconsistency.
Although I very much sympathize with what Mr. Scarpaleggia is trying to do, this bill is just so flawed. I wish we could send it back for proper drafting, if nothing else. But I guess we're not going to do that. I don't think I can support introducing yet another inconsistency into the language of this bill, even though I think Mr. Scarpaleggia is on the right track.