Mr. Speaker, I just got it. I just had a total revelation.
The minister does not understand the concept of a time allocation motion. The issue is whether the government is right to move a time allocation motion. This is not the time to debate the substance of the bill.
Perhaps five hours of debate would have been enough, but the government is constantly imposing this way of operating on us here in the House. In the long run, it becomes fairly absurd and undemocratic. That is one reason why we feel it is important to debate the bill a little longer than the five hours allotted.
When the minister introduced his bill—one of the rare times he has done so—he used tons of statistics. However, according to a study in Blacklock's Reporter, they were not even the right statistics. Therefore, it would be good for us to have more time for debate.
In fact, after taking part in the debate myself, I realize that members of the House would be able to ask more questions. If they could, then when we receive the bill in committee, we would be readier to do our job and we would not have to engage again in preliminary debates before being able to discuss the bill in committee.
This is completely undemocratic. While the minister is bragging about being there for victims, in reality he is laying it on thick but not giving them what they want.