The evidence from November 2, when the committee heard witnesses then and subsequently, was really very compelling. People were telling you that adequacy's important, that ending poverty is important and that we have to get this right. They're referring to essential human rights—the right to an adequate income.
When those witnesses say, “But we have to be pragmatic. We really want it to pass quickly. We really have to have it pass quickly. We just want this bill passed so that the regulations can be made,” what they're effectively saying is, “We're going to go along with a bill that doesn't protect adequacy whatsoever just to expedite the process, and we'll cross our fingers at the regulations stage that it might be okay.”
Really, no one should have to make that trade-off. Fundamental human rights are not ones that we trade off. That is to say, “If you give up on adequacy, we'll agree to pass the bill quickly.” Everyone knows this bill can be amended with the snap of a finger coming out of this committee or at the cabinet level to say, “Yes, we will make an amendment.” If you want to include and protect human rights, then that has to happen without people being forced to give up on human rights in order to ensure quick passage.