Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I appreciate the spirit with which this amendment is proposed. I believe it actually speaks to the spirit with which this legislation is being proposed. It clearly speaks to the minister's having to see whether or not he or she would amend, suspend, etc. It provides different ways that the minister can react if circumstances change. That's a very important tool for a minister to have at his or her disposal because it helps us to negotiate if sometimes we think things are perhaps heading in a direction that we don't believe is the right direction.
Because of the way this is worded, that opportunity is taken off the table. The minister has no opportunity to negotiate, to use diplomacy to say, “Listen, we don't particularly like the direction that that country is taking.” I'm not sure that removing that opportunity for diplomacy and to influence people that we might be co-operating with in a positive way—although I understand the spirit with which this amendment is proposed—actually helps us in those sets of circumstances. When wording in legislation is so stark, it creates additional difficulties. If there's positive change, the minister must react. Do we increase our co-operation?
It's not the way we typically would word things, and it also removes our ability to actually influence events, should they be heading in a direction that we do not like. I would once again suggest that we look at the spirit of how all of this legislation has been put together and worded. I think our intent is quite clear.
Thank you.