Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I too will speak to this motion by Mr. Pablo Rodriguez in relation to shutting down one of the most important parts of our democratic process, which is of course being able to enter into a discourse that provides analysis as to why a bill should be considered or not.
We often have the opportunity to debate bills before this House, and I know, as a member of this government, it's been a great privilege to be able to debate bills. To be honest, in all my time as a member, and though I haven't sat as long as some of the people across the way, I've never seen a motion like this to shut down debate over a bill. In light of the fact that there is so much contentious opinion in relation to what this bill would in fact bring about, I think it's essential that we do have continuous debate until such time as we're limited by the rules of the House that govern private members' business and send bills back to the House. I think that's legitimate; I think that's our right as parliamentarians.
I know that when I was the parliamentary secretary in Mr. Del Mastro's seat, on a different committee--the aboriginal affairs committee, back in 2007--we had the opportunity to debate quite a lengthy bill in process in relation to an apology towards first nations, Métis people, and some Inuit, for the residential school system. During that process, which was negotiated over a number of years, there was an associated agreement, which of course this bill doesn't have, but of course there was a piece of legislation, an important piece of legislation, that had been consulted on for many years. The point I would of course like to make is that this bill was never shut down at any stage in relation to debate that surrounded the clauses in that bill. We had considerable time to discuss the many elements of that arrangement. Of course, that arrangement was consulted--