Okay. I don't know precisely, but it was relatively early in the discussion. I think there had been a couple or a handful of speeches given on it, but the discussion had been relatively short to that point.
There wasn't an immediate call to a vote. My understanding is that there were still members interested in speaking on the question of privilege, but the government, of course, has the ability to propose closure on a question of privilege. Then the question of closure goes to a vote. Subsequent to that, there is a vote on the main motion. Yes. Of course, I can't guarantee that we would have applauded the government if they'd brought in closure. I think it would have been premature to bring in closure because there were still members who wanted to speak to this important question of privilege that needed to be debated in the House.
My only point there was that it was an option available to the government that was, I think, under the circumstances, at that juncture inappropriate, but it was much preferable in principle to what they did, which was to end the debate without a vote, by having instead a vote on a different question, which was on proceeding to the orders of the day.
Having I think responded to that point, I now want to talk about this issue of modernization. My colleague from Saskatchewan who was speaking before me, Mr. Lukiwski, a very experienced member, talked about how it's not up to the government to modernize Parliament—Parliament must modernize itself.
As well, when we see a discussion paper and a proposal for unilateral modernization, we need to get into what is meant by the word “modernization”. It obviously is the kind of word that has a positive connotation in our language. Nobody would say, “I am against modernization”, at least not without qualification. It has the kind of connotation that we're moving in a good direction, that we're moving forward. It's the same with language around “reform”. “Modernization”, “reform”, “bringing the House into the 21st century”.... This last is a favourite phrase of the House leader, who says that they're going to bring the House of Commons into the 21st century. We know that words are being selected with an eye...the 20th century—