Mr. Speaker, there we have it. They always blame it on the rules, but when it comes to an option to expand debate and to listen to the diverse voices of a pluralistic society, government members say no, no, no every time.
That member, in his specious point of order, suggested that this was simply an automatic limitation of debate. He realizes that this parliament governs itself through the standing orders and if we had a majority of members of this place truly dedicated to fulsome democratic debate on items like Bill C-4, the one before us today, then we could amend those standing orders to allow members to express fully their remarks in 20 minutes, plus questions and comments on any matter. We could extend the sitting hours of this place. We would not have to invoke time allocation and closure.
It is remarkable that this should come up because just yesterday at this time I was sitting here in my seat on behalf of my constituents, having spent much of the day preparing remarks to address another bill that had come before us, Bill C-9, a bill with respect to the Nisga'a treaty. I was enthusiastically waiting, having read dozens of articles and background documents, to enter my comments on behalf of my 130,000 some constituents on that piece of legislation. However, I was denied the opportunity because as I sat in this place my right to stand and speak on that treaty was stolen from me by that member and his colleagues in the government.