Mr. Speaker, I would like to just close off this debate by saying how much I appreciate members who have spoken in favour of this bill. The member for Ottawa West called it a foolish idea when she rose in her place. They may think it is a foolish idea but I am here to say that the Canadian public, even Liberals who have been polled across the country, hardly think this is a foolish idea.
What the Canadian public thinks is foolish are the people in this Chamber who are completely immune to job security, completely immune to being put forward to somebody who would say: "You are not doing your job, you are not acting responsibly".
The member for Ottawa West spoke about good times and bad times in a marriage. She likened this bill to an instant divorce. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many provisions in this bill to be safeguards for that.
This is something that is going to carry on over a period of days, weeks, even months. A person who has been a member of Parliament for 18 months has had a chance to prove themselves. That is hardly an instant divorce.
This bill calls for 50 per cent plus 1 of the number of voters who voted in the last election. That is not something that can be obtained instantly to call for this instant divorce.
I will wrap up my comments by saying how sad I find it that people on the government side refer to this whole thing as just something that is foolish, that they have spoken about it more than we have. May I draw the House's attention to the fact that the Liberals said today they have no more speakers on this. The member got up without knowing her facts about the bill, making comments about it.
I would urge this government to support-