I think my role is to explain the consequences of the amendment.
In this case, the amendment would change the scope of the right in the bill considerably. It's contrary to the entire approach that's been taken in drafting these provisions.
The bill proposes that the right would be acknowledged for all individuals living now. We need to draw a distinction between recognizing a right that future generations hold versus what is in the current text, which acknowledges that the current generation needs to take into account the needs of future generations. That provision and that concept are in the bill.
What is not in the bill, which would be changed by this amendment, would be to accord a right to people not yet born. That would, as I said, significantly change the nature of the right and diverge considerably from the government's intent in this case.