Well, what the substantive point means is that we only had the blues to deal with. We had very technical testimony on the bill and these amendments, but we did not have a translation of the blues so that we could all work in our first official language in order to determine the detail of the amendments. It's one thing to hear a translation, a verbal presentation; it's another thing to sit down with it and see what amendments and sections of the bill would be affected and how you work with it. We did not have that in both official languages in time for this meeting today because of the rush nature.
I have to say that the parliamentary secretary made somewhat disparaging remarks saying she and the Liberals had gotten the amendments in in the required timeframe, but there was no required timeframe and there was no deadline set for amendments because there was no time allowed for the preparation of amendments.
I take exception to the implication that somehow we were not preparing amendments in a timely fashion. We were waiting to hear the testimony of witnesses and to hear their suggestions for amendments before we decided whether we could proceed with any of our amendments because they could have been something we changed our mind on or they may have been affected by the testimony of those witnesses. There was literally no time available on a very complex bill that purports to change some very important things about our parole system.
The main concern of everyone here is public safety, and it's my concern that this bill go through in a proper form that does not have a negative impact inadvertently or through errors in drafting or errors in amendments on public safety. We all know that private members' bills have a fixed schedule, so there is no urgency for us to be doing this today. This will not come back to the House any sooner because we do clause-by-clause today, so I don't understand why the government is pressing ahead with the danger that we will do a poor job of legislating here.