Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his lecture this morning on aspects of constitutionality in respect to Canada and Parliament.
By way of background, I had occasion to get some literature out in play for my constituents on the question of reasonable term limits. I was aghast to learn that 98% of constituents in my riding prefer this kind of reform.
The member across went on ad nauseam about the need for constitutional amendments, provincial rights and so on. I note there is nothing in the legislation that would change the allocation of seats in the Senate.
He continued on a fairly lengthy debate on what sort of protocols would come to play about constitutional change. He must not have been listening to the government House leader when he indicated in his opening remarks on this bill that leading constitutional scholars have indicated the bill is completely constitutional and does not need an amendment.
What are the real reasons the member continues to block, delay and find excuses that have no rationale? Why does he put those issues in front of us as a way of blocking this kind of legislation that Canadians want and are looking forward to seeing in Canada's Parliament?