Oh. Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the nudge back, because you know I want to stay within the lines. Otherwise, I lose the floor. That would be counterproductive.
Again, the process that we want, that we're trying to introduce, jars what they're trying to do, and I am pointing out, Chair, that the reason it jars that is because their game plan is just “take the hit; we get the law”.
It's no different than going into court and hiring a high-priced lawyer because that would up the chance of winning, because I got one of the best—cost me a fortune, but I got one of the best lawyers there is. Is it worth it? Yes, if I win the case, it's worth it. Well, that's what's going on here. The government is willing to pay the price of political criticism to get to the law that they want, which gives them an unfair advantage in the next election.
We're not just going to sit back and let them steamroller that through. That's why we're in this moment. That's why my motion is there. That's why my motion is meant to do something so very simple, that you would think that it would almost be un-Canadian to not vote for it. It says let's listen to Canadians, where they live, and give them a say on their election law.
I pointed out the last time, Chair—and I won't repeat my arguments. But the point I will make again is that voting and election laws are very different in Iqaluit in terms of the way they work than in downtown Toronto or my hometown of Hamilton.
Some of these changes have people living in certain geographical areas, representing certain demographics within our population, who are very concerned that they are going to be disenfranchised, that they will be denied the right to vote. And what could be a greater abridgement of one's rights than the right to vote? I suppose the only thing greater would be to be innocent and locked up. I would imagine that...