Mr. Speaker, it is true that we did, at second reading, support moving the bill from this House to committee, because it is a vote in principle. Surely to goodness we all agree that this bill has been hanging around long enough in various forms in various Parliaments, so we thought we should get it into committee and start hearing witnesses.
When we started to hear the witnesses, we saw that maybe there were some problems with this bill. In fact, there are some problems with the bill. I have only gone through three that I think are highlights.
My colleague makes a big deal about our not moving redundant amendments. Her party moved 22 of them, and its record was zero in 22. I do not know why those members would move redundant amendments that would inevitably be defeated. It does not seem to make a lot of sense.
Then, at some point or another, they were so unhappy with the way they had been treated by the government side that they filibustered the committee for four hours.
I welcome them to the tactic. God love them, but it is useless and it is a waste of time.
I do not think this is a case of getting religion late in life. There has actually been a lot of consistency in the Liberal Party to say that we should examine this bill, that we know these are the flaws, that it is going forward and we know it is going forward, but we want to put our marker down such that in the event that we get an opportunity to fix this bill, we will do it.