—and I appreciate your recognizing it for what it is. Thank you. I'll try not to abuse that; I know you won't let me.
I have tried to show that this is not political grandstanding. I've made it clear that my leader, who is sitting beside me now—and I've said this before—is not interested in grandstanding, that this is too important, and that, yes, the motion will include a tentative start date for clause-by-clause.
I haven't talked about the third point yet today. That's what will take me to dawn, talking about the third point. I have mentioned—and I won't stay on it long—that as an opposition party you don't normally put a start date in a motion because you box yourself in. You don't do that.
But given the direction we received from our leader, it was to go in. It was meant to be a motion, we hoped, that we could get adopted. But if not adopted, we would come to some kind of a compromise and get through the process and move on.
My leader was insistent that this not be an embarrassing piece of grandstanding that wouldn't stand the scrutiny that would come when put before people. That's why I have referred back to this over and over. I have said over and over that we are open to discussions. We still are open to discussions and negotiations to find a way through this so we can stop focusing on process and start focusing on the law and on hearing from Canadians who are affected by this law.