It's like looking in a mirror. I can't tell the two apart.
Very briefly, because I know we want to get on to clause-by-clause consideration, I told the official opposition and all members of this committee that I would have two reasons that we are opposing the motion as proposed by Madam Latendresse.
First, very obviously, we have been paying careful attention during all testimony. I do not see the need to have a report repeating what we had already heard. We had made careful notes as to the testimony provided, and therefore I think it's redundant, at the very least, to have a report to tell us the information we have heard over the course of the last couple of weeks.
Second, I would point out that, in my belief at least, this was a tactical and procedural manoeuvre by the New Democratic Party because if a report were presented and then tabled in the House it would allow the NDP to ask for concurrence, which they have done many times before. Concurrence in a report, as we all know, requires three hours of debate in the House which would take away from government orders, government legislation, and would allow the NDP to further their position on the fact that they are not in agreement with the fair elections act. I think this was a procedural tactic and is not necessary.
Based on those two reasons, we will be opposing the motion.