Well, I think your colleague on the other side there is also somewhat confused, based on your interpretation of things.
There were ten points that were put out by the CAFC. They were in the audience the last time, and this is why I think we need more time on this bill. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs believe that the definition is--I'll quote them--“overly open-ended”, and that “fire services generally regard the emergency services as compromising emergency first responders”.
In their own words after last week's meeting, they recommend that there should be wording changes to clarify the definition, based on this bill. Do you agree with their approach and their response?