It was. I think so. I'll do that when my time's up. I'll talk about the Simms model.
Mr. Chair, I have a quick comment for Ms. Sahota through you. I think we have said on this side of the table a million times that we are willing to have that discussion. Even Mr. Reid today in his remarks said that there are items that you—you, being the government side—have brought forward in your discussion paper that we could probably agree on. We could probably move forward, as you're saying it, but we are not going to take a walk down that path when we know there is danger ahead giving the government complete authority to move forward and have that veto.
Your House leader said the government would have that veto. I liken it to taking my dog to the vet to be neutered. He'll jump in the car. We'll take the trip down the road. When we get to the parking lot, he knows something's up and does not want to go in. I liken this to your wanting us to take that ride, but there are problems at the end of that ride. We refuse to do that, and we are united. We will have the conversation. We'll approve Scott Simms' motion. We'll move forward, and we'll start that conversation right away. Do you not see an issue with that?
Would you be in the same position if you were on this side? That's my question. Would you be so agreeable if we were on that side, or if the NDP asked you, “Come on. Let's go. We'll have a discussion, but we're going to have the final say.”