Madam Speaker, I always enjoy and appreciate my colleague's interventions, both in committee and in the House. His passion is unmatched by many in the House.
The purpose of clause-by-clause consideration in committee is to propose amendments that approve a bill. My assessment of the amendment was that it did nothing to modify or improve the bill. All it did was propose removing the amendment in one clause of bill.
If members oppose a clause, they should simply vote against it, rather than putting forward an amendment that has no substance, the result of which is achieved by voting against the clause, and has no hope of receiving support from government members. We knew that. It was clear. The Liberals did not accept any amendments that were made by members in the committee.
The amendment we put forward was substantial and would have at least addressed the concerns of the Governments of Quebec and Manitoba, and probably could have led to a very similar outcome as the amendment those members proposed.