Senator Gold: I would have to reflect upon that, Senator Tannas.
As I said, I accept the Senate’s ability to move amendments to motions. I will choose not to pronounce upon whether that would be something that I would support or oppose in the event that that comes to pass.
Senator Tannas: We’re arguing over how equivocal the government wants to be here. I wondered if the word “intent” in that paragraph is an equivocation.
Again, would it be possible and acceptable, if this house decided — and maybe you don’t want to answer an “if” question — that that stated intent become something like a public assurance or a public commitment?