I have just a quick clarification. It's not if you ask for a written proposal that I wouldn't think it was worth it. It's the fact that you insist on not having a vote on the amendment and clearing the deck so that a new proposal could be put forward on Thursday. It's not the fact of asking for a written proposal that I find objectionable. It's the fact that you won't let us have a vote on the proposal that's been on the table for months to decide that question and clear the air so that we can move on to a new solution. That's what I find objectionable.
I'm quite happy to work with the other parties to put something in writing. I've done that many times in this Parliament. I've sometimes done it with other opposition parties. I've sometimes worked with your government. In fact, before the pandemic struck, I worked with Chrystia Freeland in order to amend the trade policy for the country. That was a process that involved lots of things in writing between parties. I'm very happy to do that kind of work.
What I want to know is whether there's good faith on the other side, and I want more than words. We've had a lot of words for the last month. What I want is an action, a signal, that there's good faith. That signal is letting there be a vote to let the committee pronounce on the amendment that's on the floor. That would be a sign of good faith that would show me that the work with the other parties is worth it and it's not just the government making busy work for their political opponents while reserving the right to tell us to get lost if it doesn't like the outcome. That's what I'm talking about.
I just want to be clear so that you're responding to the right thing.