The question that was put forward to the committee, as is oftentimes the case with amendments, was on admissibility. Is the amendment admissible? Has the amendment threatened the very will and intention of the bill that's been passed by the House? That's the point. Of course we're looking for improvements. We've been meeting with government officials; we've been meeting with the parliamentary secretary, and other members from around this table. Of course that is the intention. But if we're talking about admissibility, the permission to actually make the amendment or not, this has been ruled inadmissible. The debate as to whether it's an improvement to the bill or not is not admissible by definition. To go round and round in this conversation about further improvements and whether the right tool is being used.... This has been accepted by the House of Commons in its intention and direction. To change that intention and direction is not admissible under the rules by which we govern ourselves.
On May 1st, 2007. See this statement in context.