Though
the
opposition
has
raised
legitimate
concerns
about
the
practi
-
cal
challenges
of
implementation
,
their
arguments
rest
on
assumptions
that
do
not
hold
under
scrutiny
.
Our
case
has
demonstrated
not
only
that
the
current
system
is
failing
those
it
purports
to
serve
,
but
that
the
pro
-
posed
alternative
is
both
feasible
and
urgently
necessary
.
When
we
weigh
the
evidence
presented
today
—
the
measurable
harms
,
the
failed
alternatives
,
and
the
clear
path
forward
—
the
conclusion
is
unavoid
-
able
:
the
benefits
of
action
far
outweigh
the
risks
of
inaction
,
and
the
burden
of
proof
has
been
fully
met
.
For
these
reasons
,
we
firmly
affirm
the
motion
and
urge
this
house
to
vote
in
favour
.
1 / 1
