No, I think this would be best, because I can make the case for support of some of these Liberal amendments and then the enhancement of what we see.
The challenge is that this is, I believe, an attempt to do away with some corruption or some practices in which full disclosure wasn't happening, particularly between resource companies and their international and national applications. I think none of the committee members here were at the committee that studied this legislation. What was attempted, and I think achieved, particularly through amendment NDP-8, was to have some level of consensus between environmental groups, human rights groups, first nations, and resource companies themselves. As committee members can imagine, that's not necessarily the easiest consensus to try to pull off.
The attempt is to have greater transparency. We agree with the broad directive that's approached by the Liberal amendments here and enhanced by what we're including, that if we are going to take a shot at this, to have greater transparency for Canadian firms when dealing with international and national-level governments, we want to have the best that we can. If we can get an amendment that environmental groups, mining companies, and first nations can agree with, I don't know why anyone would want to stand in the way. I think sometimes the best role of government is to get out of the way when the interested parties are able to come to some agreement. That's the basis of amendment NDP-8, which I can speak to again when it comes up.
Broadly speaking, this is, as Mr. Hsu has said, a step forward. If we are going to change these things only every so often, Chair, and we don't often change this kind of legislation, then one would expect us to try to aim for the very best we can. We don't find that this is as good as it could be, and that's again according to the testimony at the committee that did address this section of the bill.