Okay.
I'll obviously speak in favour of the amendment, given that we made it. I do think it's symbolic. A title of a bill is very important. Given that this bill does address the issue of safe consumption sites, and recognizing that the single purpose of safe consumption sites is actually to protect people's health through various risk-reducing measures, and that in fact we have so much evidence to show that these kinds of sites actually save lives, it seems to us that it's really important to ensure that the name of the bill actually makes a reference to the health of individuals and communities. Even though we're in the public safety committee, it is the Minister of Health who makes decisions. It just seem a no-brainer, logical, and rational that the name of the bill should make reference to the fact that this is about the health of both individuals and communities. Unfortunately, the bill doesn't do that, which is why we've moved the amendment.