I have some friends I heard from as well, and they told me the opposite.
Anyway, you talked about the provisions. You spoke to certain provisions—the current structure, you don't see the evidence, you don't have a problem with it; you said it's a question of what you believe ideologically or philosophically. I'm quoting you. Therefore, in my view, and I think in the view of any logical individual, no matter what the provisions, I would conclude that if you don't believe in it ideologically or philosophically, it doesn't matter. And it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your coalition doesn't believe in it.
So from one side you say that these provisions are welcome—that's what you said—but they have not been tested. What is this telling us? It's telling us two things, I think: they haven't been tested because maybe everything's okay, or two, we're condemning these without even having to actually access them.
Does that make sense?
And my last question, Mr. Chairman, is this. Is there an agreement anywhere that your coalition has supported? You come here, you say you don't support it, but you never really provide solutions or conditions whereby you would support an agreement if certain provisions were inserted.
So you've made a great statement, but you haven't given us any proposals.