Yes—the Simms model, where we found a way to allow colleagues to have a say and interact in a way that's not the usual way we do it, but it was felt that it was the healthiest way for us to deal with the situation we were in.
I want to extend your remarks, if I may Mr. Reid, not only to our chair but also to colleagues. That's about as good as it gets when you're in that bad a shape. To that degree, hopefully, lessons were learned and good things will carry forward.
Chair, the reason I asked you for the floor was that the government has indicated it is withdrawing, and Mr. Simms has indicated through a tweet, conversations, and public comments that it is his intent to withdraw his motion. Mr. Reid has said that if there's a withdrawal of Mr. Simms' motion the amendment would obviously be withdrawn too. Therefore, what I want to do is clean it up. If we just move forward now, technically, that motion is still on the books and could be recalled by Mr. Simms at any time he wishes, and it would be in order. That creates a problem because it can only leave us, on the opposition benches, with the impression that the government reserves the right to bring back this heavy hammer.
In order to allow us to have a clean airing and a fresh start and get on to some real work, I wouldn't say it's necessary but certainly critically important that we go through that formal process of getting the motion and the amendment off the books. Make it go away, let us get on with our work, and that matter will move to the House where the battle will continue, but in another arena under a different set of rules, and we can get back to work.
I ask, through you, Mr. Chair, if Mr. Simms would be prepared to seek unanimous consent to withdraw his motion, and by extension the same process for Mr. Reid, to clear the matter so that both the government and the opposition are starting from the same perspective and attitude going forward, without any lingering doubts as to whether or not anything else nefarious is at play.