I'm going to continue to support Mr. Holland's motion for the same reasons I gave last week. I just want to add that the real problem we've got here is we simply do not have enough time to deal with an issue that has been a serious policy issue in this country going on better than twenty years. To handle a change in that policy by a private member's bill is about as undemocratic as any process I could think of that would be instituted.
We get two hours of debate at the start of the private member's bill at second reading. We get two hours at the end. What is obvious to anybody sitting at this table is that we've got this inability to adequately respond to those people in the country who have a valid right to come here and testify. We've got probably close to 200 names of individuals and groups who want to testify. They've told both sides of the table that, all parties.
I'm not suggesting we call all of them. But to reduce that, as Ms. Mourani is suggesting at this point, to--where are we at?--30 or 32 witnesses is not democratic. It's a bad process. It's an unfair process to the witnesses, and quite frankly, it's an unfair process to the country as a whole because of the significance of this issue. No matter which side of the coin you're on, it is a major policy issue. It should not be dealt with in this way. It is just grossly undemocratic.
That's all I have to say.