Maybe we should have.
It certainly does speak to the fact that when we make the case that my motion is not an unusual way for us to do business, we can back that up. How nice would.... How many cities were there, just so we can be accurate? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen.
Fourteen cities: one would actually start to believe there was a desire to hear from Canadians. As strange as it sounds, Chair, I look at this and I think, hmm, what could it possibly mean? I think what it means is that they were bringing in a new citizenship act, so it crossed the minds of the members of that committee—hmm, hmm, and probably more hmm—that maybe they should go out and ask Canadians what they thought about an immigration law that affects everybody.
Why can't we think that way? That's the point of our motion. That's why my motion is here. That's why all of this is going on: we think that Canadians should be given an opportunity, particularly when there's so much potential controversy. I won't get into the bill itself, but the fact is there are leading Canadians and ordinary Canadians, if I can use that term, who are looking at this, and they're troubled and they have concerns. They're not asking for much. They'd like the committee to treat them with respect.
I would make the case that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on December 20, 2004, really did want to hear what Canadians thought. It's hard to look at that and think otherwise.
Conversely, it's hard for Canadians to look at the process that we're involved in right now and not draw the conclusion that they don't want to hear from anybody. They don't want to consider alternate points of view. They don't want to hear some other thinking about something they've already decided. They want their law and they're prepared to take whatever political heat it takes to bring it in, so that they can get a fix in the next election before it even happens.
I congratulate the members of that committee. I don't know who they were, but the members of that committee at that time are to be commended for caring enough about the opinion of Canadians such that they would actually travel.
Now, it's fair, because the government has raised their concerns about a circus and a gong show and such when we talked about my second bullet point, which is travel. That's what they say. That's one of the reasons I haven't yet convinced anybody on the second point. I got one member on the first point, but I still have two other points.
Is he getting shaky on me? I'm disappointed. I thought he was a man of commitment.