I am saying that in a positive sense. Sometimes I speak too quickly. When I responded to the question from the member over there, I said very clearly that there were other agreements or parts of agreements that we accepted. There have been times when we have been unable to embrace a certain agreement, though we have identified certain parts of it that have been effective.
Please let us not have the member suggest that when we are unable to embrace legislation that it is because we have rejected it in its entirety. In fact we have not. I have named other agreements where we looked at certain sections and we said there was a way to approach this.
I hope I have made myself clear. Perhaps I went over that too quickly for the member.
The member also said something else. It is fine to stand here and give a heartfelt plea and say that the only determinant to whether legislation is good or not is if it helps or improves the lives of people. My personal revenue flow on the property I own would be greatly improved if I built a hotel on it. However, there are certain jurisdictional conflicts to that. I cannot build a hotel on the land the I own at this time, but it would help my revenue flow.
To simply to get up and give a heartfelt expression that if it improves lives, everything I said is directed toward improving the lives of people.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.