That's all right.
Tom, listen, “you're the man”. You're the man: I know where the power is. That's why I keep looking to you for some sanity over there. There has to be a piece of this that I don't get.
That's what I'm thinking, Mr. Julian: somehow in here there's a piece that I'm missing. They're going to walk out there and that piece is going to become self-evident, and all of a sudden we're going to look foolish for what we did and they're going to look brilliant. I don't know what that is. Even after close to 30 years in elected office, I still learn. I'd love to know what piece of this I've missed.
But from everything I can see, what is at stake is, first of all, the right of the official opposition to at least get answers from our clerk to serious questions on the implications of changing the way we make laws, given the complexities. Remember, we didn't get an answer to any questions. That was just Mr. Julian's first question. We don't know what other questions there may be or what questions there will be as a follow-up to that.
Normally that wouldn't be a big deal, you know: we'd table the motion, get the information, and talk it through. But that doesn't seem to be at all what the government is interested in. They're not interested in any kind of fairness here. They don't seem, Chair, to even be interested in good law-making.
The very first question that Mr. Julian asked was, what are the implications for other procedures we have for law-making in Canada? That doesn't sound like an obstructionist question. That doesn't sound like somebody who doesn't want to deal with an issue. It doesn't sound like somebody who doesn't understand the issue.
It sounds to me like a serious parliamentarian took seriously a motion put by a highly respected member of Parliament and asked the first question that came to all our minds on this side of the committee room: What are the implications?
This motion speaks to one piece of the process, but it clearly has an implication for another process that happens in the House. While it may be amendments from members who don't have a prayer of getting them passed if the government doesn't want them, that's not at all the point. The point is that this committee is expected and needs to know what the implications are of changes that are made.