It has an amendment that's similar, except for subparagraph (v) of Mr. Julian's amendment.
I've looked at the items Mr. Jean suggested and I'm looking at the bill itself. The concerns that are expressed in subparagraph (v) of that amendment that's put forward by Mr. Julian, but not put forward by Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Volpe, are in my view already covered in the bill. As Mr. Reinhardt has indicated, under proposed section 5.392, the government is amending one of the items, and I think it captures the intent of that subparagraph, which is essentially to provide protection to those who offer the information without having to be concerned about any retribution.
I'm wondering whether we are spending a lot of time discussing the differences that are really.... They are not only not perceptible, they are, quite frankly, non-existent. The difference in that particular amendment is captured by another amendment and another proposed section of the bill.
I'm going to propose we deal with this. I don't have any discomfort in saying that we accept Mr. Laframboise's and not mine, because it's the same. I'm only asking that Mr. Julian accept the same and that we carry on, because his subparagraph (v) is dealt with in another place.