My colleague is talking about 2011. I think we debated the budget for 58 hours. There were not 200 amendments. No, it was actually the debate on getting postal workers back to work. The number of amendments was not an issue in that case.
That will happen again in the House if the government goes after unions and workers again. I was not too keen on what was said at the Conservative convention last weekend, Mr. Chair. They seem to think that workers' representatives are all demons. However, without workers' representatives, unions or workers' associations, we would be in the same situation as some third world countries where people earn $2 an hour and do not have a pension plan or any other benefits. That is something we could discuss some other time.
In this particular case, we can tell that the proposal comes directly from the government because it was introduced in all the committees. We are told that committees are their own masters. We also know that political parties help their members to introduce motions in committees. However, when a proposal is submitted everywhere, we know that it comes from the party. In this case, I don't think it was deliberate. I do not say that unkindly. But I think I am right in saying that, if independent members are unhappy with the proposal, if they feel that a privilege is being taken away from them and if they want to make us pay for it, they can go to major committees where the government is trying to pass bills and shut them down at the same time, all in the same week.
If the Conservatives have not thought about that, I am sure that they will be aware of it once they read what I am saying in the “blues”. It could happen. Are you ready to pay the price? In your shoes, I wouldn't want my government to tell me that Mr. Godin raised an issue, that he might have been right and that perhaps it is time to consider the issue again. That does not seem to be the case. You seem ready to take action along those lines. I don't know. I look at you and feel that you are really listening. Perhaps I have raised a good point. Perhaps you will not fall asleep during my speech.
This idea has not been fully explored. I think the government members figured that, if they allowed independent members to introduce amendments in committees, those members would stop introducing them in the House. But they did not think about the fact that the same problem could occur in committees, where they are trying to push some bills through. In some cases, when their bills go through the Senate and it takes a few days, the government becomes impatient. The Senate is there, but they wish it weren't. They feel that what the Prime Minister says should be approved right away and we should go along with it, but that is not how things work.
Imagine if we were debating a bill that the government would like to pass again and it took weeks. That will happen if it is what those members want. I repeat: it could affect a number of committees and bills at the same time.
We may have sometimes thought that independent members should not have the right to ask questions, but we must admit that the Speaker has always given them the right to speak. Since all members are part of the House, the Speaker has always allowed them to ask questions in the House of Commons. Independent members have had this opportunity since the inception of Parliament.
I think the issue is too significant to be addressed piecemeal in our committee. Let us refer it to our experts from the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and let us try to develop procedural regulations. There is no harm in that.
I know other people would like to have a turn and I would like to give them an opportunity to do so, but we still have 10 minutes. The chair said that the division bells will ring at 4:20 p.m. It is now 4:10 p.m., so we still have at least 10 minutes.
I am not sure if I made myself clear about the danger of this amendment. You don't have to agree with me. I don't want much. We should invite the independent members to appear since we are talking about one of their privileges. If we must go ahead with this motion, we should hear what they have to say. If the government changes its mind and refers the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because it thinks it is important, that is fine. We must consider what the outcome will be if our committee does the study. Perhaps that point has never been considered or raised. If we come back to the issue later, we will have time to think it through.
Other committees may suggest things, but the Conservative members reject them, saying that they received instructions from the Prime Minister's office and that they are doing what the government tells them to do. You are not losing anything if we wait until the next meeting; you have the majority. I don't know how long we will talk about this or what priority we will give it, but I just want to caution you.
Thank you.