Mr. Speaker, the hon. member at the outset of his remarks questioned the motivation of the official opposition putting this motion before the House at this time suggesting that for some reason it was peculiar to put it forth the day after the Quebec election.
The hon. member will know that each opposition party is allocated a limited number of supply days to debate motions of this nature. We have been planning for some time to hold a motion on the balancing of powers, reform of the federation, the social union and our new Canada act. We did not schedule this day. It appeared this way on the parliamentary calendar.
I think it is quite propitious that we have an opportunity to debate this in light of the democratic decision of the people of Quebec yesterday. Had we done this before an election of course the hon. member would have said it was interfering in the Quebec election and so forth.
This timing is a complete red herring. There have been two motions now to extend what is not a deadline in the motion before the House. It is a target date. It simply urges to the government to conclude an agreement with the provinces and territories prior to December 31. It is a very similar wording they use in their own declarations.
If the hon. member does not agree with that deadline or that suggested date of conclusion, perhaps he has another one he could suggest. The Prime Minister told us he has always in his political career supported Senate reform as an objective. He has been here for 35 years. Is that how expeditiously this government operates with respect to its constitutional agenda?
I want to ask the member why he does not allow some flexibility with respect to the timing in this motion. Why is it he who is denying unanimous consent to extend the proposed time line in this motion?