Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to pick up on what you just said, “solution-making”. We're all for that.
If anyone wants to reflect on the beginning of this conversation, they will clearly see that the tone and the approach of the opposition was to be constructive. We asked serious and legitimate questions about the implications of passing this. We asked the most official person we have in the room after the authority of the chair—that is, the clerk, and the advice that the chair receives from her. Mr. Julian asked the question through the chair of the clerk, what are the implications if we do this? In fact, he asked that on the amendment too. In both cases the clerk said, “I can't give you a firm answer now. I need to check and I'll gladly come back to the committee.” That makes all the sense in the world. Nobody demands that you make it firm. That's why the Speaker often says,“ I'll take a little time on this. I need to reflect on it. As you were, continue on, and I'll get back to you.”
There's very good reason for the clerk to say, “I need a little time”. The last thing the clerk wants to do, given her excellent reputation, is to give advice because she wants to look good, to give an answer off the top of her head only to find out later on that it wasn't the right answer. Then we're into a procedural nightmare and the whole thing has to be unravelled. When clerks give advice like that it has serious implications.
What did our clerk do in, most arguably—certainly in terms of the business of Parliament—the most important committee we have, and therefore the most important clerk? What did she say? “I need a little time to give the member the answer that he needs and deserves.” Those are my words.
It's all very reasonable. Any reasonable person looking at these proceedings would have to ask themselves, if the government were serious about having an intelligent, grown-up discussion about changing the way that we make laws in Canada, would they be more than willing to wait at least 72 hours to allow the caucuses to reflect on this, to allow the clerk an opportunity to give her interpretation and her answer? My House leader has pointed out that nothing is going to happen negatively. In fact, nothing is going to happen vis-à-vis this at all if we don't pass it before Thursday. Waiting until Thursday is going to cause absolutely no damage to anything, guaranteed. My House leader has made the point. I didn't hear anybody from the government challenge the fact that no harm would happen by virtue of waiting.
On the other hand, my colleague, Mr. Julian, and my whip have made the point that there could be serious implications for making this change, perhaps unintended consequences, and perhaps that's the exact intention. We don't know. Since the government won't be reasonable, Mr. Chair, and allow proper reflection and expert advice then we have to conclude that this is the tyranny of the majority and that they're going to ram this through. The government members know exactly what the implications are. They know exactly what they are doing. Therefore, as I said earlier, they are prepared to trade off the negative hit they will get for being undemocratic in ramming this through, thinking it's still better than leaving the situation they find untenable right now. That's the only thing that we can conclude.
At any time someone with great credibility, like Mr. Lukiwski, wants to take the floor and say, “That's not the case, Dave, you've got it all wrong, of course we're willing to take a little time to look at this...” I'm quite willing to yield this floor—I have to watch those expressions—to allow that to happen. But that's not happening, Mr. Chair. They're sitting there and saying nothing. They're not doing anything in terms of telling me I'm wrong. You're not telling me I'm wrong, Tom. All I need is a little nod from Tom to say, yea, Dave, we'll give you two days. It's not a problem. But that's not happening. Crickets. That's what we hear over there. Just crickets.