I'll intervene now that I actually have a right to intervene for the next 12 minutes or so.
You know what? Laugh all you want. Smile all you want. That was a darn good subamendment, and one that came out of discussion. People may not like how the discussion came about, but that was a darn good subamendment. People may not like the person who proposed it, but if you actually listened to the people who were there at the table, my sense from listening to them, the people on the ground, was that they supported it, and that was the product of what we are here to do.
At the very least, we got a chance to debate this. Yes, it got voted down, but at least we got to hear from witnesses. It was a good subamendment, and I think it would have given law enforcement more of what they needed.
Too bad for the next, well, I've got 90 pages here.... I think we're on page 10 of my 90 pages. At least we got to debate that one.
We're going to be talking about encryption and breaking encryption, whether encryption should be broken, whether encryption that has been or has the ability to be broken should be broken by the state and how that relates to organized crime. If I'm an observer watching at home, I'm wondering why we even send our people to Parliament in some respects, because at the end of the day, if you get four people to cross the floor, one of whom said “and it's good for me”, that's what democracy comes down to: “it's good for me”. That actually dictates what happens at this committee: It's good for me.
That's all I have to say.