Okay.
Essentially, I hear that more runway is needed, given the implications of what is included in Bill C-65. Although, at the rate of the Conservatives' questioning on clause 2 regarding long-term care facilities.... They spent two and a half hours filibustering on a clause that has no amendments. They quickly abandoned that in order to move to this particular clause when they realized they had an opportunity to move a silly subamendment that makes no sense. Ultimately, are they really that concerned about any aspect of Bill C-65, or is this just another opportunity for political games and partisanship? It certainly seems to me like it's only about that. I've only been here for five years, but I have been on PROC for quite a number of those. I've seen a lot of this from the Conservatives over the years. It's not really that big of a surprise, to be honest.
It's interesting that dealing with the very issue we discussed—moving to the NDP-2 amendment—would have corrected the problem the Conservatives have cited over and over again. Yet, they would not give unanimous consent for that. However, they eventually gave unanimous consent to move to clause 5, only to move a subamendment that would create a whole number of other issues, mostly around inclusion and voter participation. Those are clearly things they have a track record of not demonstrating they care about. What's interesting to me is that we're sitting here now and going to debate a subamendment that causes a whole other number of issues for Elections Canada in terms of accomplishing the things in the bill.
What's also interesting to me is that we've had so much debate on a clause with no amendments. If you look at how long the Conservatives are drawing out Bill C-65, we might not even get it passed through Parliament so it can receive royal assent by the date they're now suggesting.
The other thing that occurs to me is that I thought there was an entrenched rule in our parliamentary system and a tradition that there is a four-year maximum term for any elected government of the day.
Isn't that a tradition that goes back quite a long way?
Mr. Knight, maybe I could pose that question to you, just to help me understand. I don't mean to put.... I mean, I am putting you on the spot, but that's what you're here for. I shouldn't apologize for asking you a question.