Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I do share Mr. Easter's concerns about committees making such extensive amendments that you could in fact have a different bill—especially when you're dealing with private member's bills. One of the few prerogatives remaining to private members is the introduction of bills.
So I do share that general concern. However I would have to say in this case, having spent a lot of time looking at the bill, I believe that the amendments by the government make changes that really amend the same sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and they do it by the same means. So to me it would technically seem to meet the scope requirement. It has not moved beyond what was originally suggested.
Now I have to say I'm very happy because we raised some concerns in the questioning of witnesses and the vast majority of those concerns have been accommodated in these amendments. So I would also be in a very strange position if I said the government actually listened and then I don't think procedurally they can do that.
I recognize that, but I do think it has amended the same sections and therefore done it in the same way. So in the very narrowest of senses, in my reading of the rules, it would still be the same bill, even though there have been substantive content changes.