One of the concerns about the bill is what I like to call the law of unintended consequences, where it looks very simple upfront, but then, as I think one of the questioners opposite mentioned, other people rush through that door in a way that hadn't been intended.
I'd be interested in legal counsel and maybe Brian commenting on whether, in their view, this amendment would sufficiently narrow the focus of the bill so that we won't have any surprises down the road with a flock of other people coming to take advantage of the provisions.