Mr. Speaker, thank you for your very thoughtful intervention. Once again, you have distinguished yourself as a wise helmsman of this place.
I am surprised by my friend from Winnipeg on his thoughtful intervention. What we should be able to do is have the different parties in this place sit down and say, “This bill is a really consequential and important bill. We have a lot of members who want to contribute and participate in the debate. Could we have five days of debate on it?”
This bill is not quite as consequential. It is shorter. It had good hearings. The government came forward and amended the bill to make it better when we listened and heard what we did at hearings. However, we do not see that. What we see from the official opposition is it just wants to be able to put one more notch on its desk with another time allocation motion, rather than standing up and entertaining a reasonable discussion about what we can do. That is really unfortunate.
When I was the opposition house leader in the Province of Ontario, we sat down with the government and developed a programming motion with the Liberal government of the day. We said, “Here are our 10 bills that we debated this fall. We will have so much time for all the bills”. Then we could negotiate. “We want five days of debate on this one. This one is inconsequential. We are happy to debate it in two hours”. However, we do not see that from this official opposition.