Just to be on the record, for me, it's really just clarifying it. It's just being logical. I fail to see where it changes the essence of what we're trying to say.
Changing the current wording of the bill—“the act that constitutes the offence is committed”—to “the act that would otherwise constitute the offence is”, as proposed in the amendment, means that an offence has not yet occurred. I don't see what the problem is here; we are just proposing a clarification in the wording. This expression may not be as precise or as positive as that proposed by Mr. Cotler. But his amendment may necessitate that the clauses be changed too much. Our expression, however, would have a very minor effect on the rest of the text.
I am not sure I understand. Like my colleague Brian Jean, I would like you to explain it again. It may have to do with the fact that I am reading it in French, while the English is not the same. I don't know. As I see it, this is simply a matter of logic.