That's a very apt way of putting it, David.
That is simply not acceptable, and it shouldn't be acceptable to any parliamentarian, regardless of political affiliation or political stripe.
Once again, I offer that if any member on the government side of the table can explain to me why not asking for unanimous consent, based on the historical perspectives, conventions, and traditions that we have seen, is a good thing to do, I would be more than willing to cede my time and listen with rapt attention. The only difficulty is that you won't be able to explain it, because there is no good reason. The reason is not good. The reason is that this will benefit you and only you. It will benefit only the Liberal Party. Even more basic than that, it will benefit Liberals, not just the Liberal Party.
Mr. Chair, I know that regardless of what I say, what my colleagues say, and how passionate and articulate our arguments may be, we will get no acceptance from the members opposite, and I don't expect any. I'm certainly not trying to persuade them to change their minds at this table. If there is a change of heart, that can only come from people with a slightly higher pay bracket than those of my colleagues on the opposite side, but I sincerely hope that we can get to that point.
As Mr. Christopherson said, perhaps during this two-week constituency time when all members are back in their ridings celebrating their religions—some celebrating Easter—and their time with their families and friends, and talking to constituents, the time away from this place will allow cooler heads to prevail.
I know, as I mentioned earlier, that our House leader has reached out on several occasions to the government House leader, but the frustration we have is the fact that those overtures have been not just rebuffed, they've been ignored.
I can tell you that it's not just members of the opposition who are feeling frustrated during question period when legitimate questions are answered with the same lame and banal talking points we have heard for the last month and a half, Canadians are getting very frustrated as well.
If you have a valid point, if your rationale is sound, there should be no difficulty to express that rationale on behalf of the government. There should be no difficulty to explain to Canadians why you're taking the position that you're taking, but you have not presented that position whatsoever. You have talking points: “We want to have a conversation. We want to have a discussion.” Well, we're having one now and it's going to go on for a while, but it's not a discussion as most Canadians would interpret it.
To Canadians, to your typical Canadian, a discussion is where both sides are heard and both sides can make arguments that are reasonable and rational, and it is hoped that at the end of a discussion there can be an agreement. It doesn't happen all the time. Obviously, it doesn't happen in Parliament much of the time. At times the best we can say is that we agree to disagree, but at least discussions are intended to have an intelligent discourse of ideas being transferred from one side to the other. That is not the case here.
It simply doesn't matter what we say, what we suggest, what we recommend. It doesn't matter what overtures we make. It doesn't matter if we are willing to compromise. The inflexibility of this government is astounding.
I honestly believe that if the government agreed to unanimity requirements on changes to the Standing Orders, some of the suggestions the government would make would probably be accepted by members of the opposition.
To the point made by my colleague Mr. Christopherson, I would like to think that we, as individual members of opposition parties, could make some useful suggestions that might be accepted by the government. I won't suggest that the Standing Orders should be considered a living document, but there have been multiple changes, numerous changes, over the years that benefit parliamentarians, that improve the operation of Parliament, and that increase the efficiency of Parliament, which the current government seems so fixated on, but they have always been done with all parliamentarians coming together and agreeing on them. It just stands to reason. Common sense alone dictates that if all parliamentarians agree upon a proposed course of action, it's probably the right course of action.
There will be times in the life of any majority government when the government feels compelled to use all of the procedural tactics at its avail to push through legislation, procedures such as time allocation and closure. I understand that. I was a part of a government that used them. I take no issue with those because that is the way Parliaments have operated for the last 70 years, but I do take exception and great umbrage to the current attempt to change the rules so dramatically and so profoundly that it would tilt the playing field, if we're using a sporting analogy, one way and one way only.
I do not profess to be the leading expert on procedure and parliamentary practice, but I know some stuff. I've learned a little bit over my nine years in that position.