I'm going to support the motion. The basis on which I support it is that I feel we've gone through a huge amount of discussion at this committee about how to handle this bill. Members will remember that we actually sent to the steering committee the question of the timetable and how we wanted to handle this bill. The steering committee came back with a schedule and a timetable and clearly laid out that we do clause-by-clause yesterday and today, and then we would move on to the next bill, which Monsieur Lessard has referred to. That was adopted by the whole committee. We all agreed to that. I felt at that point there was some buy-in by everybody that this was what we were going to stick to.
It became clear that wasn't the case on Tuesday and Wednesday, because the Conservative members are intent on moving another motion, which is basically to derail the bill now and have it shut down at this point. We've already debated that, and so I'm going to debate it again, but I think this motion is in order.
We're talking about eight hours potentially. It's a three-page bill with three clauses. I don't think it's unreasonable that we should be able to get through it if we are actually focused on doing the clause-by-clause rather than everything else that some members want to get into. I think it's a reasonable thing to get through this today and have it reported back to the House, as we agreed, all of us unanimously, on the schedule.