Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on the reason we are using this very legitimate parliamentary procedure—which is not closure, by the way. Time allocation has been used and has been part of parliamentary procedure going back to the very beginnings of this place. The member is correct, though, in pointing out that a previous Liberal government would also use this on occasion.
The truth is that when we have important legislation, such as the victims bill of rights, and we are unable to forge agreement in a way that would allow the bill to proceed, this is the way in which Parliament permits progress. This is the way in which important legislation is able to navigate the path forward, which will involve further committee debate and a return to this place. Suggesting somehow that this is a cutting-off of the debate and that this is the end of people's ability to give input into this important bill pertaining to victims is factually incorrect.
When the debate is not being productive and when it is simply the reading of patent speeches over and over again, I do not think Canadians see that as a productive use of this place's time. I do not see that as a way to move legislation such as the victims bill of rights forward. That is why we are in this place.