I tend to agree. In the last two hours it is the first time I've been in a situation where it's the government that's resisting moving forward. That's an interesting situation.
Mr. Chair, the situation will not be the same on Wednesday. There will have been a number of days that have gone by and serious attempts to find the common ground and wording that would reflect that, with which all parties, government included, would be comfortable.
This comes not from my imagination but from the words of the only person at this table who is authorized to speak for the government. His suggestion was the one that triggered quite a realistic possibility.
Therefore, I don't accept in the least the repeated comments that things will be the same on Wednesday next week. What would have happened then is a test of the goodwill—yes, absolutely—but also a test of the capacity to work constructively, which is what we are trying to do here. If there is absolutely no intent to accept that on the part of the government, we'll find out.
I suspect that they will be surprised. I'm getting to know Mr. Fast through the spaces that we have on various committees. He should know by now that I have demonstrated flexibility in the past and that I can demonstrate that again.
To say that I can't change is not accurate, Mr. Fast. One must be careful about that.
What I have difficulty with—and I've repeated this forever—on this debate is the exclusive privilege. I do not want to get into that, because I'll be called for irrelevance and so forth, or on some subamendment to an amendment to suspend.
But be careful when you attribute intentions or designs to anyone else, because you may find that they're not quite the reality.
Thank you.