I'll be on good behaviour. I'm sure you can understand the frustration, in the sense that I think this is an important issue. All we know is that the minister is talking about amendments. We haven't even seen the amendments, and we don't know the context, other than a few statements he made. Ultimately, we believe there's a due process for a minister to follow.
My question to the minister is, why have you chosen to hijack Mr. Shory's bill and bring in amendments through the back door, as opposed to, as a minister of the crown, bringing in your own legislation? We would be afforded the due process that would have enabled us to have a healthy second reading and more witnesses.
I could talk about the war brides, the citizenship, Don Chapman, individuals of that nature. There's a lot of interest in citizenship and in renouncing one's citizenship. There is a high level of interest. Why didn't you do it through the normal process as every other minister has?