That was my concern. I heard from the department and I understand that legal services might have some input in this, but my understanding is that, first of all, they need a broad definition under this clause in particular, depending on what happens with the bill. So it would be premature to have this definition come forward and define a bill that hasn't yet been defined or hasn't been set—at least the clauses haven't been—and my proposal doesn't change anything as far as the majority deciding. Certainly the will of the committee would rule, but the concern by the department—and I'll let them speak for themselves—is that, quite frankly, the definition as proposed limits the bill and the capability of the bill, and as such, I'm just suggesting that it go to the end and be dealt with at that time.
It doesn't change anything about what is included and what the other parties' positions would be. It just gives the ability to put it at the end, because it does deal with some contentious issues and does limit the scope of the bill.