Senator COOK(11.51 a.m.) —My language was a bit loose. I was not meaning to imply that this bill should be adjourned. This bill has been waiting around for a fair while and, now that we have got to it, we ought to get on with it. My consideration was not to lose the essence of the initiative, while giving ourselves sufficient time to consider how it might work and whether there was a balance of support for it. From my party's point of view, the principle is appealing, and we would support it in principle, but we would need to look at the detail.

When I spoke about adjourning this amendment, which suggests that the bill be kept alive but the amendment be somehow taken out and re-examined, that was probably a bit of loose language on my part. I think the bill should go ahead but the proposal for a sun fund can be looked at and brought back on at some time by some other mechanism.

I know that Senator Brown has expressed disinclination to look at a private member's bill, which is one option. I understand his reasons for that. However, what I am indicating to the chamber and to the government is that we are disposed to examining this principle and we are serious about resolving the issues associated with it and implementing it, but I do not think that process should impede this legislation. If it did—to jump ahead of myself—we would not vote for this amendment. We would encourage the passage of the legislation but we would take steps to ensure that our commitment to the principle was honoured and followed through on.