Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe these comments are germane to the amendment, as they are to the main motion, and I am happy to respond to some of the issues that Mr. Hill raised.
I would also point out that I'm glad to hear back from him. I did phone him last week during the break to take this matter up and did not hear back from him.
I would concur that on February 8, 2005, during the 38th Parliament, when we were the government and the Conservatives were the official opposition, the House did adopt by unanimous consent a long list of amendments to the Standing Orders. These amendments, which were requested by the Conservative opposition as well as by the other opposition parties, were adopted on a provisional basis and were to expire sixty days after the 39th Parliament, which is the one we are in now. In fact, the motion to adopt these provisional Standing Orders in the last Parliament was put to the House by the governing Liberals.
On September 20, 2006, the House adopted a motion, again by unanimous consent, to have the provisional Standing Orders remain in effect until November 21, 2006. Practically speaking, if nothing happens before that date, we would revert back to the original Standing Orders that in essence would get rid of all the provisional Standing Orders, which are in effect until that date.
It's interesting that the provisional Standing Orders, which we're now discussing, were incorporated at the request of the Conservatives when they were in opposition. I would concur with Jay, insofar as those discussions did take place. Because they were in camera, I wouldn't do chapter and verse of what happened. The agreement was that they be extended to November 21. I would point out that from the opposition's point of view, there have been no discussions, nothing initiated that would create an atmosphere where we could discuss them. Mr. Hill was not in the room when I introduced this motion at the last meeting, but after thorough discussion—and this is one of the things I wanted to discuss with him when I called last week—we feel that these Standing Orders need to be dealt with in their entirety, which is why we felt that the motion we put forward was the best motion. We have not heard any rationale or any identification on behalf of the government as to which Standing Orders they would want amended or changed. From our view, now that we sit in the seats that were once occupied by the former official opposition, we think these Standing Orders work quite well.
For that reason, we would not support the amendment.