Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with the member for Mount Royal's substantive critique of the bill before the House. In my question I would ask him to address his complaints with respect to process.
I would emphasize that not only were the bills collectively given dozens of hours of debate in the previous Parliament, they were a central element in the electoral platform of the Conservative Party, which committed to passing these bills within 100 days of the resumption of a new Parliament.
For him to characterize the government maintaining its democratic commitment and executing its democratic mandate as somehow undemocratic denudes the term “democracy” of any meaning.
He said that all members should have an opportunity to debate. Of course we will have a debate. We will continue to have a debate on these matters. Every party and many dozens of members have spoken to the bill.
Let us be clear. The opposition will do everything it can to prevent the bill from passing. It is not interested in debate. It is interested in using dilatory tactics to prevent the adoption of the legislation, which is a core part of the government's democratic mandate.
He said that this is without precedent. I was in the opposition when his party invoked a time limit on debate dozens of times, so I think he is being a bit--