I'm a little perplexed by what's transpiring right now. Everyone agrees that there are concerns, on the Conservative side, with respect to the amendment adopted by this committee, which removed the good faith religious speech defence to an allegation of wilful promotion of hatred. After some time, our Liberal colleagues understood that this is a material concern, perhaps, not just for the Conservative Party of Canada but for many other Canadians. We now understand that the Liberals are about to propose their own amendment seeking to fortify some of the protections that were available, under section 319, subsequent to the removal of the defence. I believe Mr. Lawton's amendment also seeks to do this. I think everyone agrees—and everyone should agree that everyone now agrees—that we want to see whether we can improve the language so that it will be agreeable to everyone.
I'm not exactly sure why my friend Mr. Housefather opposes our suggestion to prioritize the Liberal proposal and to see whether we can work it out and whether we can negotiate the language. I'd even suggest that we might consider adjournment so that we can look at the collective language being proposed, compare it to Mr. Lawton's language, understand the position of our Bloc committee member and see whether we can negotiate the gridlock we find ourselves in.
Mr. Housefather is scheduled to speak after me. I'm wondering, in good faith, why we can't prioritize—without breaching any privilege—the intended Liberal amendment, to try to bridge the gap between the Liberal Party and Mr. Lawton's subamendment, which we're currently debating, since they intend to do the same thing.