On the amendment, I'm a bit surprised to hear from the government that they call this technical. I'm wondering why it was not thought of before. I always hate these types of amendments that could have been covered through questions prior to doing clause-by-clause study.
In my legal mind, it doesn't sound technical, especially (b). I'm not saying that I'm against it, but I'm saying that I don't think we can qualify this as technical, because it's bringing a broader thing. For my second point—and I would like some answers to that—give me some examples of the situation in (b), because it is still required to comply with this act. When would it be? Give me examples of that and especially why that was not in the bill at first.