Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
With respect to the parliamentary secretary, this really isn't specific to the comments here, and I'm not in any position to judge the interpretations, and I look forward to having further information and appreciate very much his offer to bring it forward; but on the general principle, I don't think it is sinister one way or the other to consider the possibility that different people and political parties approach different subjects in different ways.
I've been here since 1993, and there have been some things that we haven't agreed on. So if you amend a piece of legislation to give power to the department or to a minister to act, I think it is a reasonable expectation that you would assume that certain ministers would react some way and other ministers might react in different ways. Therefore, it is possible that you would open up the Employment Insurance Act, as an example, just to demonstrate my point; and depending on which political party opens it up, my guess is it might take different changes.
That's all that we're really talking about here, that if the government intended to do a certain set of things with powers that were opened up in the bill, and then a subsequent government decided that this power could be used—and I don't mean it in a pejorative way—in a different way, I think it's a legitimate debate and discussion. That's all.
Personally, any concerns I would have are legitimate public policy concerns about questions of censorship and so on. I think those are legitimate things that have nothing to do with people getting all worked up about their ideological differences. Frankly, I think we should avoid that kind of thing and just talk about the content and substance of the discussion.