To get back to the topic, I wanted to just dig into the direction you chose to take here, especially with some of these potential amendments. I would be quite bullish in terms of the need to address this problem, the need for regulations to deal with the safe disposal of lamps containing mercury, and the risks of mercury in general.
What you've put forward is a bill that involves the development of a national strategy when, arguably, it is within the federal power to regulate the safe disposal of mercury directly. I understand from a private members' business perspective that there's only so much time in terms of preparation as well as debate in the House. I'm curious as to why you didn't take that step, though. My sense, looking at some of the amendments, is that they do soften a little bit the version of the bill that we had at second reading.
Your bill had strong support in the House at second reading, and I think the stronger version would have strong support at third reading. I'm curious as to your thinking behind, first of all, not going directly for the regulation route and, secondly, the softening in terms of the amendments.