You and I will agree to disagree on that particular issue. I'll leave it at that.
The whole point here is to improve on legislation. What this committee has heard from Conservative members today and last Wednesday were reasonable amendments to improve the legislation. We all should be striving for clarity when we're drafting legislation and when we have legislation that passes. Where you don't have clarity, that opens up litigation.
I've heard nothing but intervention after intervention from my Liberal colleagues about avoiding the increase in litigation, which brings me, again, to highlight the importance of Mr. Baber's amendment to ensure that there is clarity, to ensure that this respects the spirit of this section of Bill C-16 and to forever close out that concept of the use of reasonable hypotheticals during the sentencing aspect of Bill C-16.
I believe what I've heard so far from my Liberal colleagues in their interventions is support for that, but I suspect that, once this particular amendment reaches its conclusion in terms of interventions, the Liberal Party will not be prepared to vote in favour of this amendment. In my view, they are voting contrary to the stated intentions that they have already telegraphed throughout the day and this past Wednesday. In my view, that runs contrary to our stated purpose of improving legislation with clarity.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.