The answer is that nothing I'm proposing would preclude whipped votes. In fact, I think they likely would be whipped votes in many cases. You know, what I've suggested here is a method that would, if the parties agree, lead to a free vote, but it could be a whipped vote. Nothing that happened in the motion I read, or the report from the committee 10 years ago, precluded parties from holding whipped votes if they wanted to. That's an internal matter.
Obviously, when you get all-party consensus, by definition you're saying that the party leadership and the party caucus, through whatever internal mechanism they have, decided as a whole to say either “we'll have a free vote on this” or “we'll have a whipped vote”.
Presumably, the key point is that the whipped vote, if there is one, is in favour. If one party says they're having a whipped vote against it, then you'll get all those speakers. If we're voting in favour, then many people will choose not to participate in the debate. There'll be no need for them to do so.