I'm sure Mr. Cotler can defend himself on that point. I will say that time passes and ideas come and sometimes they're ripe for consideration. I'm not even sure this one is ripe, because I haven't been convinced of the effectiveness of this type of legislation—despite the enthusiasm our witness from the United States brought to it. Clearly, Mr. Cotler has pointed out a significant gap or hole in this legislation, which the government has also recognized.
I will say, Mr. Cotler, I'm not certain whether you are arguing now for your amendment to pass or to amend the amendment that the government has. Maybe you can clarify that. It seems to me that if the object is to ensure that the plaintiffs aren't going to run afoul of a jurisdictional or forum non conveniens type of argument, the way to do it is to be more particular. Perhaps the government amendment, even with your add-on to it, would be more effective than the one you have before us. That is, unless you're suggesting that your amendment needs another amendment to another section in order to be effective.
There seems to be more than one way to do this. I'm interested in assisting to improve the legislation that is now before us, as opposed to some legislation that Mr. Jean thought might have been before somebody else at some other time in the past.
I believe we are here together working in good faith to try to improve this legislation. I wonder, can you tell us whether you still wish to proceed in the manner you suggest by Liberal amendment number three? Or would you be satisfied with the next amendment coming forward with some modifications?