Well, the line of questioning I will be asking further witnesses who are going to come and testify will be along the lines of whether the bill should be amended so that rather than just dealing specifically with methamphetamine, it is any of the items we see schedule III basically outline.
I think it's much more difficult to prove something in specific than it is to prove something in general. The more we generalize the production or the sale of such precursor materials in the creation of a broader list, such as all of the items in schedule III, it will probably be a little bit easier. I can see a defence forming: “We weren't going to actually create methamphetamine, we were going to create some other type of amphetamine.” All of a sudden, your proposed section 7.1 has been successfully defended against, just based on a technicality.
I'm just wondering if, from your perspective--if the feedback I get from other witnesses agrees with my own train of thought--you agree that an amendment would be in order.