I was being facetious, Mr. Chairman.
I only have one response with respect to Mr. Cullen's suggestion that is entrenched in that particular amendment.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that when you go to court you draw your expert witnesses to establish what's fair, both in a procedural form and in terms of quantitative form and. When we were talking about the $650 million we had the Rothschild report, which was submitted as reasonable grounds to establish the quantum of reparation and also the kinds of checks and balances that are in the legislation with respect to natural justice, the tribunal, and so on.
My fear in going Mr. Cullen's route through that amendment is that it flies in the face of the expert testimony that has been provided through the report we have been given by our witnesses. The risk is that you have then set the stage for an appeal to the legislation on the grounds that the expert testimony that established both the quantum and the content of the bill is suspect. I don't think we want to set the stage for that.
We have good legislation. We have reasonable grounds to defend it. I believe we must avoid the constitutionality or whatever you want to bring into it--and I'm going to use the term “at all costs”.
I would argue against the amendment, and I would use the grounds that have been given through our witnesses that in a Canadian experience--yes, Mr. Cullen has quite rightfully referred to other experience, but on the basis of the experience and the expert draft that we had through that report--the $650 million is sufficient and that the exigency that may occur, to which Mr. Cullen refers indirectly through his amendment, is not consistent with both the reports we had and the way the whole bill has been constructed.