I want to bring to the committee's attention the fact that we've had numerous opportunities to debate this issue. We've heard from a lot of witnesses. There's clarity that has come from my participation in this debate.
This motion is suggesting that there are weaknesses in this private member's bill, no matter how well intentioned it is, that have not been addressed. Some of the members raised them at this meeting a few minutes ago. There's the fact that emergency services or essential services would need to be amended if we were to proceed with this legislation. But we cannot amend the private member's bill as it stands, based on the opinion of the clerk.
I think Mr. Lake is simply trying to acknowledge the fact that we, and I think members from all parties, recognize there's a problem that needs to be addressed. This private member's bill doesn't adequately address that problem. We can't amend this private member's bill, so we're looking to find an alternative solution, which is where the second motion comes in.
That is the key point I want to raise at this time, Mr. Chair.