Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff, for being here.
I'd like to pursue a line of questioning based on what you said. You indicated that your vote for Bill C-10 was in the national interest, yet it seems to me you sent a very disturbing signal with that vote. Look at the reality of women: because they earn less, their pensions are less and their employment insurance is less. For a significant number of women, particularly single women, elderly women, they live in poverty. It all traces back to the lack of income security.
Now, you called Bill C-10 a “dumpster bill”, and yet you chose to support it. I'm wondering how that squares with this notion of the national interest. It would seem to me that it would be in the interest of women to have pay equity, and haven't you just made pay equity another bargaining chip? You talked about the evils of using pay equity as a bargaining chip, and yet it seems to me that it became a rather cynical bargaining chip.