Yes, emergency debates. My colleague is helping me.
We are now creating a new avenue where the order is given that the House of Commons shall meet. That is a very big deal. It's a lot of money. It commands the attention of every member of Parliament in terms of having to be aware there is something in the House that they may or may not feel they need to be a part of.
I'm looking at it and asking if that threshold is sufficient. It's a great idea. I especially like the follow-up idea, because right now with petitions people sign them, but do they think about them again? Do they get much follow up? Maybe, but oftentimes no. The real moment is when they sign it and then when it's presented, but other than that, there is not a lot of impact. In this case, I really like the idea that they're notified electronically that there was a debate; the link is provided, and one can see what was said. This is excellent stuff.
Talk to me about your comfort level with the notion that 100,000 signatures, which you can do from home, with 10 MPs signing—and if something is motherhood enough that may not be very hard to get—now triggers x number of hours of House of Commons time. Give me your thoughts on why you think that threshold is sufficient, and why we won't be inundated with what would be petition debates, I guess. Help me work through that, Kennedy. I'm having some problems being comfortable with the idea that you could command the House of Commons to meet for x period of time with all the money and everything that means, with 100,000 signatures and 10 members.
Give me your thoughts.