Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised two objections: one substantive and one procedural.
On the substantive objection, it is important that we recognize that, when concerns are sincerely held, they can be dealt with by either correcting misinformation or changing the bill when the concern is something that needs to be addressed. We heard examples that demanded changes, and we are willing to make those changes concerning the role of the Attorney General's consent, the definition of hatred and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely and with the certainty that it will not result in the commission of a crime.
On procedure, this is where I have to draw the members' attention: We are dealing with a bill that has been eligible for debate for six months, has been at clause-by-clause in committee for almost four months and has seen obscene obstruction, including Conservative members devolving into conversations about whether they and their spouses prefer puppies or kittens. If there were a serious debate to be had, we would entertain all arguments and would address them appropriately, but this debate ceased to be serious months ago.