Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this is an interesting one, because what has been proposed in this amendment is simply splitting the definition, so that there are separate definitions for “security” and “safety”.
I wonder if the officials could outline for us in a bit more detail what the ramifications of that would be in terms of the need for other amendments. Does this create a situation in which you have parts of other bills that will then need to be amended in order to specify whether it's safety or security that is being dealt with?
Is that a clear enough question?