Madam Speaker, it is interesting: I listened to the answer that the minister gave to the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and instead of talking about what is before the House, which is a guillotine motion, a motion to kill further debate in this House, he responded on substance.
In fact, I would agree with him. He wants to talk about substance; we also want to talk about the substance of the bill. That is precisely the issue that is bringing us to this point here today.
I want to remind the minister of this quote:
We have closure today precisely because there is no deadline and there are no plans. Instead of having deadlines, plans and goals, we must insist on moving forward because the government is simply increasingly embarrassed by the state of the debate and it needs to move on.
Who said that? It was the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, on December 9, 2002.
I would agree with the Prime Minister. As he then said, the government is embarrassed, and it ought to be embarrassed, because in fact the government itself moved six further amendments to the bill. We should be debating the bill, because clearly there are flaws and the government has agreed there are flaws. The bill merits further study.