I'll be very, very, brief, Mr. Chair.
The witness we had today, who is a lawyer, which we made sure was on the record, indicated that he would reword the current bill. He was in favour of the concept in principle, but he said the wording was not where he would like it to be. That's why I think Mr. Lake was offering the opposition an opportunity to look at the wording to see if they could make additional recommendations in terms of attachments and references to different sections in regulation, and so on. But it doesn't sound like they are interested.
The other point I want to make, which Mr. McTeague made, is that this isn't a motion. This is law. We shouldn't be using the creation of, or changes to, the actual laws of the land to send messages. He was saying that it would send a message to the commissioner that we're not happy that they haven't been able to find anything in the petroleum business so far, and that with this one-word, two-word change, they'll go and study it again. He still might not be happy with the results, whether or not that happens.
But we shouldn't be using private members' bills to send messages. These are legal documents; this is changing the law of the land. Send a message another way, but don't let's do it through changes to the legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.