The problem is that if you are supportive of the idea of unanimity, then why not just pass the amendment? It's like spending a long time having a discussion with someone, and then at the end you suddenly realize you've agreed from the beginning. If the government actually thinks that we shouldn't have unanimity, thinks that these decisions should be made on consensus, well, we've been talking for over 500 hours and agreeing. But we just want to pass the amendment so that we know.
Now, that seems to be where Mr. Simms is in terms of aspiring to unanimity, and let's just confirm that, but obviously we can't trust the government, or at least the government House leader, when the government House leader has said on television that we're not going to let the Conservatives.... Effectively the implication is that we don't want the Conservatives involved in this discussion. I think a really partisan way of putting it is....
Obviously we know the strategy—to say, okay, let's shove the Conservatives off in the corner and pretend that it's only the Conservatives who are opposed to it. But it isn't just Conservatives. It's Conservatives, Greens, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois MPs, probably some Liberals, and certainly many ordinary Canadians who don't have any partisan affiliation who are raising concerns about this.
This is the process that got us to this point, when you have the government House leader saying these kinds of things and pushing back. On the one hand, they're saying that they'd love to have unanimity—at least some members are saying that—but on the other hand, they're saying they're not going to pass an amendment that would protect consensus. This is why this amendment is so important, because it guarantees that there's going to be consensus. We keep seeing efforts of the government to undermine our parliamentary traditions and undermine respect for our democracy, or at least our responsible government system that we fundamentally associate with democracy.
I could go through many issues. The most recent is the fact that the government tried to adjourn a debate on a matter of privilege without having a vote on it. This is so important because it's relevant to all members of Parliament. The issue in this particular case was that members of the Conservative caucus were prevented from voting because of something that happened with security. That's, of course, very important. However, you could imagine a whole host of other cases in which members of Parliament would have their privilege denied, the Speaker would rule a prima facie case of privilege, but then the government would, without a vote on that question of privilege, adjourn the debate. You could imagine all kinds of cases that would negatively affect all members of Parliament.
I ask members of government to think about this. What if it were you who was prevented from voting, or there was some other way in which your privilege was threatened? Perhaps another member had been threatening towards you or any number of cases from which issues of privilege arise. You've been denied the right to do something that you should be able to do as members of Parliament.
When these questions happen, there's an opportunity to raise questions of privilege in the House. The Speaker then asks if there is some legitimacy to the case. We go forward with the prima facie case of privilege. The government has options for ending that debate. They can move closure on questions of privilege. That forces then a vote on the closure and then a vote on the question of privilege. Therefore, the government can force a vote on these matters. However, what the government tried to do was get rid of the question of privilege without voting on it. Fortunately, the Speaker ruled that this was an issue of privilege, that it was an issue of privilege when an issue of privilege can't be brought forward in the proper way. Even the fact that the government tried to do it was something that the Speaker acknowledged in his ruling had no precedent. This is presumably because no government in the entire history of our tradition has ever tried to get out of a discussion of a question of privilege without a vote.
In the very fraught history of Westminster parliamentary democracy, this government found an abuse of the House that had not even been attempted before. Now they want us to trust the goodwill they have in the context of this process.
Well, it would have been nice to see some goodwill in the context of the privilege question that came before the House. Fortunately, we had a very wise ruling from the Speaker on this, but the government attempted this, which should legitimately colour how we approach the discussion of this amendment and this motion.
This amendment provides us.... If as Mr. Simms suggests—different from the government House leader—there is a desire for consensus, then give us the insurance, because a lot of things that have happened have made us question whether we can actually rely on the goodwill and good intentions of the government.
This is not to single out any particular member here. Mr. Simms might try to work constructively throughout this whole discussion and then all of a sudden be pulled off this committee and put on the library committee, to be replaced by someone who is going to sign off on the government House leader's—