So this is what it comes to: we need ad hominem arguments, because the other ones, which are directed at the issue at hand, don't seem to find favour because they obviously reach a sore point.
When I talk about the evidence we heard, what I'm talking about is that if the government were so confident that its opinion and its proposals were the right ones, then you would think they would welcome an opportunity to respond to the suggestions of Professor Bala, for example.
Don't think, Mr. Chair, with all due respect—and I'm trying to keep on point, and I've been, as I say, trying to keep on point for some 20 years in parliaments, and I have a little experience in how the relevancy rule works, so forgive me if it might take a little time to get around to showing how it is relevant....
The relevance clearly is that when expert evidence such as we have heard is brought forward, surely the government would want to say why it is that they disagree with such an eminent person and show either who their expert is or say why, even though he has expertise, they disagree. That's the kind of debate that I think we expect to see happen. And that's why we're objecting to the government's apparent desire not to have debate beyond the confines of the clock of November 17, with no notice to anybody about this event.
We have a very difficult problem before us. We have a government that is arrogant about its role and doesn't seem to be able to get it: that having a majority means never having to worry about being tossed out by a surprise vote in the House of Commons.
You have a majority. You can relax; you can spend a couple of days debating matters that you seem very convinced of; you can listen to reasoned opposition and offer your own point of view. That's all we would expect from a government. We don't expect you to adopt every one of our amendments. We'd like you to, but we don't expect you to.
We expect you to listen to them with respect. We expect you to consider them seriously, and we would hope that you would adopt some of them that are either improvements to the bill because you haven't thought of those things or because you are willing to consider new ideas. That's not a bad thing. Oppositions have good ideas; they're not just the bailiwick of government. We would expect that some of them would be considered. Some of them might be modified. Some of the arguments might actually get you to change your mind.
That's what we would hope to have happen: that a mature, responsible, reasonable government would be willing to accept that type of debate. But this government doesn't even want to have it happen, let alone show a willingness to be flexible about possibly improving the legislation.
That's why we're debating this now and that's why we are forced to continue to do it.
Thank you.