I mention that not to try to lift myself up in the eyes of members of this committee, but to say that over the course of nine years, I had the opportunity to do a lot of negotiating with members of the opposition parties, and not every time did I meet counterparts who honoured their words. That promotes nothing but lack of trust. My colleague, Mr. Nater, spoke of that a little earlier.
In our committee, I made sure that any time I gave my word, my word was not broken. I can assure members as well, from time to time, I was called on the carpet—let's say, by people with a higher pay grade than mine—because I had made a commitment that was not viewed favourably by others. However, I kept the commitment. Those others, who perhaps were a little angry at me, recognized the fact that I couldn't break my word because then the trust factor would have started to break down. Once that happens in this place, it is very difficult to achieve anything.
I only mention that because I say to you—and I'm sure others have said it as well—we, as an opposition, will not let this filibuster end. I will guarantee you that. We can be here as long as the government wishes to be here. We can be here past June 2. We can go to the next federal election, if you wish. We feel that strongly about his.
Mr. Nater talked about the fact that we don't mind having a discussion. He's right. Neither do I. However, it has to be done in a manner in which we reach unanimous consent by all parties because of the fact that it affects all parties and all parliamentarians. Changes cannot be made just to benefit the government. I pointed out examples about how we had the opportunity to do so when we were in government, and we didn't do so. I have to be honest. Quite frankly, I don't see a lot on the other side of the House, on the government side of the House, that makes me think they are willing to enter into such an agreement. In fact, I see just the opposite. I see things, sometimes almost on a daily basis, procedures and attempts to shut down meaningful debate from the government, which makes me truly question whether or not they are willing to work with members of the opposition.
The most recent example happened this afternoon. We were having a debate on a question of privilege, a privilege that affects every single parliamentarian, the right for parliamentarians to come to the House in an unfettered manner and to be able to vote. Two of our members had that right denied most recently, and they raised a point of privilege with the Speaker. The Speaker quite rightfully said he found a prima facie case of privilege. This is not new. During my nine years on procedure and House affairs, I believe we dealt with the same issue on three separate occasions. Separate members were denied access to the Hill for various reasons. Sometimes it was because there was a motorcade. Sometimes it was because a security official didn't recognize the individual as a member. There were times, though, when members were denied access to come to the House, and they missed votes.
In each of those cases, the Speaker found a prima facie case of privilege. Debate ensued in the House. A vote was put forward. The House approved a reference order to be made to send the question of privilege to the procedure and House affairs committee. That's the appropriate method. That is the appropriate course of action. What happened today? The debate was ongoing, and the government shut it down. They didn't postpone it or delay it. They shut it down. That has never happened before.
Unfortunately my colleague and friend Mr. Graham, who is not here right now, earlier said that we Conservatives did that in the last session, the last Parliament. It's not true. Granted, there was a debate on privilege and we invoked closure, but a vote was held. Parliamentarians from all parties were able to vote on that question of privilege.
This did not happen. This government shut down debate, and the vote will never be taken. Individual members—backbenchers, frontbenchers, members of the government, members of the opposition—were denied the right to vote on a privilege issue that could impact each and every one of us sometime in the future. It impugned and impinged upon the democratic right of parliamentarians. A vote was not even allowed.
Trust me on this one, and you all know this: governments come and governments go. You have now set a precedent, so one day, perhaps not in the not-too-distant future when you're sitting on the opposition benches, the government of the day may have a majority and will be able to say that there has been precedent and it doesn't have to allow members to vote on a privilege, even though it's been viewed as a prima facie case, because the previous government denied that vote.
This is dangerous ground that the government is treading, and there is an easy out.
Mr. Chair, I see an intervention coming, so I'll certainly cede my time for that intervention.