To be perfectly honest, it's hard for me to get beyond two possible interpretations of what's happening here.
By insisting on the idea that they want a written proposal, which is something that we've agreed to as an opposition.... We're already trying to negotiate some time in the next 48 hours for us to meet the government's demand that we would propose something in writing. Either the government is being deliberately misleading, which would be unfortunate, about the fact that we're somehow denying that we would make an effort to put something in writing or they don't realize how toxic what they're doing right now is. What we've said is that we will, as an act of good faith, meet to discuss in the very way that members on the government side have asked us to do. We're already undertaking to do that by making those arrangements through our offices even as we speak. We've committed to that.
As a reciprocal sign of good faith, we ask that the government not even itself recognize that this proposal towards a compromise, which Mr. Turnbull put forward and that we've been debating for a very long time, is dead in the water. We don't ask that they say it's a bad idea. We just ask that they allow us to have a vote on it so that when we come back for the following meeting, the slate is clear.
They give up nothing in terms of whatever it is they're doing, whether they're protecting the Prime Minister from appearing at committee—I hope not, because I think he belongs here properly in a study of prorogation, and we can disagree about that—or whether it's protecting the government more widely on questions of the WE Charity scandal. Whatever it is they've been doing here, and they've been doing it for a long time, they give up nothing by having a vote on the amendment, because we'll suspend the meeting and we'll come back and we'll still be on the main motion. They don't surrender their own right to move another amendment, or if a Conservative or a Bloc or a New Democrat moves an amendment on Thursday, they haven't given up their right to move a subamendment to that. There are all sorts of possible ways to proceed. What we're asking for is a minimum show of good faith in a recognition that this particular proposal in Mr. Turnbull's amendment isn't going to be the one that gets us beyond a compromise.
We've already done the good faith thing. We've already undertaken, as three different political parties on the opposing bench, to get together in the next 48 hours and try our best to produce something in writing that the government folks can look at.
When we ask for a small gesture of good faith, the answer we get, after you've had some time off the record to talk about it, is.... The word I have for that, that would be used on a job site, is not appropriate in a parliamentary context, but I'll tell you, the message is received.
I think if we want to get to a point where we can start with a clean slate on Thursday, and have the best possible proposal that three different political parties can bring together jointly, it's important to decide on the issue of the amendment today. If we can't get that minimum act of good faith, I think it's pretty presumptuous of the government to say, “Well, we want something in writing and we want this and we want that.” That's fine, if we're working in good faith towards a solution. All we're asking is for what I think is a pretty bare minimum sign of good faith from the government side that we would at least dispense with this amendment, and then we'll get to the work of proposing something new.
The government wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to keep their own proposal, which has had more than its fair share of time at this committee by now. Do you want to talk about how much time we're giving to different solutions? Mr. Turnbull's amendment has been on the table for weeks. We've debated it, if you can call it a debate, for hours and hours. All we're asking is that we put that one away with a vote, and who knows? Maybe it will go the government's way. It's not likely, but who knows? We can't know until we have the vote.
We're just asking to have the vote on it so that we can start talking about a new potential solution on Thursday—that's it. I don't think you're going to find.... I'm going to find it hard to muster the goodwill to talk earnestly about a solution that we could propose to the government if they can't get it together to at least allow us to have the vote on an amendment after tens of hours of debate on it.
I really think this is poisoning the well. I hope it's only happening because people on the government side don't realize what they're doing. Perhaps if they take another moment to reflect they will realize that they are making it impossible to come to a solution if they carry on in this vein, and change their minds.
Otherwise I will be forced to accept the other interpretation, which is that this is deliberate and that they would rather keep pissing away the time of the procedure and House affairs committee, as has been happening for a long time, but then that's on them. That's on them, because what's being asked for here would not cause a big political loss. It doesn't jeopardize the Prime Minister. It doesn't bring him to this committee. It just clears the air for Thursday so that the opposition parties can do in good faith what they were asked to do by the government and bring forward a proposal which the government will be at liberty to accept or not as it sees fit. At least then we could spend our time debating something new. We're not going to get there if this amendment is still on the table at the end of our meeting time today.