My general comment is that one can look at the bill and think of ways it could be amended so that the intent could be more specific and the problems we imagine could be more explicitly addressed. If it were just a matter of the House of Commons making amendments and the bill being passed, I don't think it would be much of an issue.
The problem is that any amendment, even the slightest one, means the bill goes back to the Senate. In the way the Senate functions, as I understand it, any one senator can delay the passage of the bill for any reason, and as a result, the bill could potentially be delayed beyond the next election. With any amendment, it becomes a problem, potentially, of getting it into that cycle.
That's more of a strategic issue than a legal one, and I really leave it to the committee to decide what the risk is of that happening. But if there's no risk of that happening, and it's simply a matter of improving the wording of the bill, then I would say sure, by all means.