I just want to respond, and it's the same issue. I haven't heard why we couldn't limit debate. Why is there a problem limiting debate on issues?
Monsieur Laframboise, you addressed the matter of the agenda. As far as the agenda goes, what we did was change the start to the end and the end to the start. It was still going to be debated today. It was still going to be discussed and voted on today; it's just taken an extra hour because of the filibuster of some members here who don't agree that they don't want it to come before the committee.
All we want is the vote, so that the will of the committee can be put forward. We have tried to find the lowest common denominator so that there's a stay of enforcement or a message of stay of enforcement to Canada Post. We put that forward as the lowest common denominator, and it was refused. Now what we're suggesting is that if we're going to go back to the same situation we're in today, we should just have a limit to it, whatever that limit is. I've been very clear that we are prepared to do a five-hour limit—even a 12-hour limit was one of the terms I suggested—but two hours would be appropriate.
I'm just suggesting that whatever the time period is, it needs some end to it, and I don't understand what the compromise would be. I'd like to hear from Mr. Laframboise in relation to that.