Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to our devoted witnesses for being here yet again for another great debate. Thanks for all of your testimony, which I think helps elevate our debate and certainly provides us with a good perspective on the various topics that we're diving into.
I know that we're technically right now debating a subamendment that Mr. Perkins put forward to an amendment that was originally moved by Mr. Williams. I think Mr. Williams' amendment looked to remove all references to the tribunal from the legislation, and I believe that Mr. Perkins' subamendment was to try to almost doctor and put back in the private right to action. However, then I think there's some talk about striking a portion of that, which perhaps was unintended, if I'm not mistaken.
Chair, maybe you could just review where we're at, because I don't want us to get lost. It seems like a lot of our debate seems to be relating back to the original amendment and is not necessarily focused on the subamendment. I'd like to try to stay focused on dealing with one issue at a time, even though I get that the broader debate is on the tribunal as a whole.
Could you just clarify that for me, Chair?