I'm going there, but it's just to explain where we stand.
We will therefore be voting against the clause strictly speaking. With respect to the amendment, the issue is whether the clause, as it is currently worded, satisfies the Supreme Court's decision.
We have three experts in front of us confirming that it satisfies the Supreme Court's decision on all counts. Yet one of our colleagues has reservations, and on the surface, they appear to be valid and relevant. Nevertheless, according to the experts, the clause is fine and the proposed amendment is not necessary because the current language of the clause satisfies the Supreme Court's decision.
It will never be possible to prevent a lawyer from mounting a legal challenge; nor will it ever be possible to prevent a province from doing so. That's what you're telling us. On a broader level, we should recognize that, while the experts who drafted the bill confirm that the clause in question satisfies the requirements set out by the Supreme Court, a legal challenge is still possible.