We're here with a piece of legislation that is quite overarching. It is quite intrusive in some areas, and looks at taking away some significant due process rights.
When we're looking at legislation, our job as legislators is to make sure it is really explicit and that things like this are built right in, not going on an understanding that somewhere else this is clear. We're looking for clarity in this legislation.
This codifies what you say happens and what staff have told us. Therefore, I'm finding it very difficult to understand why there would be resistance to codifying in legislation something that occurs. If you don't codify it, then things can be expanded upon and go in different directions.
Here is something really basic when you think of rule of law or of presentation. If you talk about a particular case, especially in legal forums, that's what you want to be questioned about and that's what this says. We thought this was such a reasonable amendment that my colleagues across the way would be saying that they could see the sense and logic in this.
I'm still hoping they will take a few seconds to think this one through, because this is the kind of legislation that can give comfort, and it costs the government nothing because they're not giving anything away.