Mr. Chair, it becomes more and more disappointing as every moment goes by. It's unbelievable. What I can't get is how the government figures they're going to win the politics of this. How? How much more reasonable can we be, other than to point out exactly the procedures that we will support in the next 21 minutes that would allow us to do the business we need to do and have a better process, or a half-way intelligent process, for dealing with an amendment that changes the way we make laws?
If I may, my House leader just pointed out to me something that is very pertinent. I had mentioned earlier that this is sort of the committee of grown-ups. This is the committee that the House looks to when there's a shemozzle out there and nobody really knows what to do with it. You just kind of get your arms around it, throw it to PROC and they'll sort it out. Last night, unanimously, one of the clauses contained this quote:
in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to—
It's evident that this committee is seen as the steering committee of Parliament, the executive of Parliament if you will. Yet, we see in front of us a government that's prepared to ram through...well, no, that they would like to ram it through and they're going to end up not getting at the end of the day. They're going to have to walk outside this door and explain to the media and the public why it was so important to have this pass. They were willing to let all the business of Parliament be held up so they could ram through a motion that changes the way we make laws in Canada without fully understanding all its implications. That, to me, is the exact opposite of the kind of work and leadership Parliament expects from this committee.
I sit here amazed at the government believing they're going to win this. Did you think this was just going to slip by? Did the government think that we would feel the pressure of getting things done when the responsibility is the government's because we've given them a path but they won't give us the votes? It amazes me as much as it disheartens me that this committee would be prepared to deny the official opposition an answer to the primary question from Mr. Julian to the committee clerk: if this is passed, what are the implications for other procedures that exist in the House vis-à-vis the way we make laws? I can't imagine a more pertinent question to this motion. I'm sure there will be other good questions. I can't imagine one more pertinent to the issue before us.
Before we even get into how this will work in and of itself, the question is what are the other potential implications. Mr. Julian is not making wild accusations. He's not jumping up and down on the table and lighting his hair on fire. He's merely asking a question.