I think the issue here is this. We're trying to conduce toward some kind of solution. We clearly don't agree on everything. I mean, if you look at the position of the Conservative Party and the Bloc on the time allocation vote, for instance, on Bill C‑19 yesterday, it was different from the NDP vote. We've been willing to work with the government to try to get it to committee, because that's something that we think is really important to get under way.
The government has casually asked three different political parties with three different views, including on some of the business that either is before or will be coming before this committee.... That's a fair bit of work. There's no guarantee of success. It's something that we're prepared to do if the government is open to new solutions. But they make that request and then they come back to the table and say their preferred solution is their solution: It's the one on the table.
Monsieur Lauzon disputes the idea that this proposal is dead in the water. That's fine. There's a way to decide that. There's a way to figure that out. It's to have a vote. That's how you figure out what has majority support or not. If the idea is to find some kind of consensus on a path forward, I can tell you that it ain't a consensus. It's going to get decided on a majority basis. The only way to know if it has majority support or not is to have a vote.
In terms of what we're asking for, we've signalled a willingness to reassess and look at things, and to do that in a way that crosses party lines, which is not always an easy thing to navigate, particularly when there may be differences of opinion on Bill C‑19 when it comes to committee. There are different political agendas at play in respect of that bill and the wider question, but that's not worth doing if the government isn't open to another solution. What you're signalling, by insisting on the amendment that we've been debating for months, is that you're not really open to it—unless it's something you like behind closed doors. What you want is a written statement jointly by three different political parties with very different interests to be considered behind closed doors. Then you'll decide whether you like it or not. It may never grace the committee floor.
I'm sorry, but that's not coming at a negotiation as equals. It is not going to succeed. I think it's a waste of my time to try to work with two other political parties to come up with a proposal that might satisfy a third, and not even have the space at the committee table to deal with it, because we can't get a vote to resolve a question that's been open for months. If the government isn't prepared to offer a vote on its own amendment as a sign of good faith towards getting toward some kind of compromise, it ain't worth doing the work on our side. It's not worth the time. It's not worth the time. If the government wants to show us on the opposition side that it's worth our time to do the hard work that we'll have to do amongst ourselves to hammer out some kind of common proposal forward, then they need to show that they're willing to move on from this amendment one way or another.
Monsieur Lauzon says maybe it's not dead in the water. I say let's find out. The way to do that is to have the vote. If the government would at least allow the committee to decide the question, then we would know that it's worth doing the work to find another alternative. What we're hearing right now after all of this, after the conversation earlier this morning, after the five-minute recess, is that the government's preference is to continue to talk this out for as long as they possibly can, without giving an inch, unless the three opposition parties together pitch something behind closed doors that they happen to like.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's not a real negotiation. That's not a sign of good faith. I'm not somebody's puppet who's going to play along like a moron. Unless I actually get a sign from the other side that it's worth my time, I have other things to work on, frankly. I have people I'm trying to get back to in my constituency. I have meetings that I would like to hold. I'm trying to fit that all in while I sit on three different committees, some of which are going quite a bit better than this one, I might add.
I'm not going to invest the time to try to get the government out of its own problem if they can't even allow us just to have a vote on the very proposal they put forward. It's not like we haven't given it a lot of time. How much more time do they think it will take, in the context of today's conversation, before anyone on the opposition side decides it would be a good idea to back this motion?
I think we're ready for the vote, Madam Chair. As a sign, a minimal sign, of good faith, let's have that vote. Then we can be solutions-oriented. As long as the government is going to try to have its cake and eat it too on this committee, that is not going to be a way forward. I guarantee it.
So what are we doing here? Are we working on a path forward or are we digging in? I can dig in with the best of them. I'm pretty tempted right now. Are we going to let this moment pass us by, or are we going to get dug in?