No problem, Chair.
You rightly pointed out that the statutory review was long overdue. We did ask for it over and over, and with all due respect, it kept getting pushed off and pushed off. So I'm sure Mr. Davies is probably right-- don't know this--that the drafting was taking place because the issue was going to be brought forward at some point, whether or not we ever got to it.
Mr. Ménard would know. He was here when we asked to do the sex offender registry and the DNA data bank, and he used to agree with us, and we would lose frequently and something else would come up. Sometimes what most of us would concur with was something less important than what we have....
But I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that this will, I hope--I believe it will--pass second reading. We'd get that opportunity to come back, have the bill before us, and bring in other witnesses. There may very well be important things.... I think, with all due respect to the witnesses, they have been heard. The drafters of the bill would have had the benefit of transcripts and/or hearing the witnesses in full, as opposed to a report.
So I really do believe that timing had more to do with the end of the session of Parliament and getting it before the House, but also the fact that over the last two or three years we and the Bloc had been asking to review this, and it never got done. We always ended up doing something else that may or may not have been as important.
I'm not sure I'm going to change anybody's mind on the other side. I would suggest, if you've got on the record what you want, that we call a vote and vote on the motion.