Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, it is truly regrettable. One of the things that's wrong with this place is that instead of looking at what is said and trying to examine the merits of the ideas presented, we are trying to smear or in some way discredit the authors. If we were dealing with this in a judicial fashion, we would be looking at the ideas and not the authors.
As for amendments, quite frankly I think it's atrocious that the member suggests we'd be two years doing this bill in order to give it a proper hearing and that we would have to be limited to a minute and a half each in order to prevent us from being two years at this bill.
I don't recall any Conservative amendment that wasn't appropriate and wasn't based on trying to meet a real concern with the bill. In fact I don't think there were that many Conservative amendments that caused delay. The vast majority of amendments that have been proposed in relation to this bill have been proposed by opposition members, oddly enough, since it's their bill.
There's only one thing that makes fulsome debate around this table ridiculous and that's the fact that the members opposite shut their minds and don't listen. Maybe that's why they don't care how long we take to express ideas.
I've said enough. Thank you.