Without contradicting my honourable colleague, I would like to hear from the opposition that the amendments are so significant in structural change, that they're so important, that we need to make these amendments. Ultimately, I feel that there's a potential for the perfect being the enemy of the good.
There's clarification and stuff like that, and we all like to be wordsmiths, but can we argue fully and completely that the substance of this proposed bill cannot go forward, absolutely and unequivocally, because the amendments we need to do here today are so materially significant that we just can't get there from here despite all the work that has already gone into it?