Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague across the way sits on the committee that deals with many of these issues.
We are in a bit of a process part of the year. The government has moved time allocation on average at least once a day, sometimes twice a day, often on bills that we agree with the government on and often on bills for which we have said that we will guarantee a certain amount of time in the House, so members must forgive me for being a little suspicious sometimes in terms of the process of the bill we are dealing with.
We have said numerous times as the official opposition that if the resources are granted to the border officials who have to deal with this legislation, then we can actually have some certainty about the goals that are stated in the bill.
We asked the Library to do a bit of research on the amendments that have been considered before committee. I know my friend is a reasonable and intelligent person and has looked at this issue a lot. However, of all the amendments presented by the opposition in the last couple of years, something in the order of 94% or 96% have been rejected, oftentimes out of hand and without any discussion at all. The amendment comes up and it is defeated. There is a process of dictation going on. To suggest that 96% of the amendments are not of value is ridiculous. Most of the amendments are based upon what we hear from witnesses.
The question to my friend is this: if this is as important an issue as we all agree it is, what level of openness exists on the committee on which he sits to deal with this issue, to listen to the witnesses we bring from all sides, and then to actually try to improve the bill?
I do not think anyone is suggesting that the bill is perfect and that every period and comma is exactly right. All legislation could use a little improvement, and sometimes substantial improvement.
What is the level of openness like in the member's committee? What is the working relationship like with the opposition?