I tried to get this on, and then we were debating your ruling last time, Mr. Chair, so I just want to get it on the record. I think your ruling in fact would be proper if the fourth “whereas” didn't use the term “commit serious or repeat offences” but said “commit serious and repeat offences”. I think there's a broad enough opening that makes these amendments admissible because of that. I know that's nitpicking, but I think that's the reality of the way the bill has been drafted. That's why I'm supporting the motion to challenge your ruling, only because of that.
On February 13th, 2007. See this statement in context.