Yes, I guess they could, but I don't know about that particular definition because it was.... That's a good question. Let me ask Madame Thivierge. I'll get back to you, Mr. Redekopp, but my sense is that we've adopted the bill at second reading, where “net zero” includes offsets. Maybe that particular definition cannot really be changed, but I'll get back to you.
Apparently, my understanding is correct. This substantive definition of net-zero emissions was adopted at second reading, so Ms. May's amendment changes the scope of the bill—it goes right to the heart of the bill—and that is essentially why it is not admissible.
Does that answer your question, Mr. Redekopp?