I'm not speaking to the amendment, I'm speaking to the main motion.
I haven't had the long parliamentary experience of Mr. Hill and Mr. Lukiwski, but I suspect I've probably had more experience as a beneficiary of corporal punishment than even Mr. Lukiwski. I won't take the time of the committee to go through those early experiences. However, I don't sense in what I've seen going on.... And I take as sincere the statements of concern from the members opposite. Looking at this situation from somewhat of an outside position, because I didn't take part in any of the conversations in September, I don't see any bad faith being practised. I don't say that this wasn't felt, but my observation of it doesn't disclose that. I just meant, in my own mind, the fact that the original idea, a motion from this committee that went for concurrence, was on September 19, and then it would extend the provisional standing orders to November 21.
Clearly, it was anticipated that there would be some discussion to resolve that. I've heard nobody say that it was expected that this time would just run out and then they would lapse. It was to give space to have discussions. Those discussions, for whatever reason, didn't take place between September 19 and October 5 when we met here and had our first discussion of the concerns when the motion was presented. We heard the government's concerns expressed, but there had been no discussions initiated by the government by that time. But because there was some feeling that the time hadn't been sufficient, or for whatever reason we needed more time, we suspended discussion of the motion until two days ago, from October 5 to October 17.
I understand the chief opposition whip's office was in touch with the chief government whip's office and spoke to the whip's EA last week to try to get discussion moving on this, but there was no reply to that. There have been some discussions this morning, finally, and they have indicated two things. One is that quite aside from the process of determining the future of these provisional standing orders, concerns about their substance are quite small, and there may be some tinkering required and there may be some assistance from the clerks in that.
I do turn over in my mind, Mr. Chair, that here we are at October 19, a full month after it was first presented, and that the existence of the orders would be extended to November 21. We do have another recess week coming up. We have lots of other things to do. It's not as if we have until November 21 to actually sit down and talk about this. There are a number of things that have to go into train before then. While I accept that this amendment was put forward--finally, if I may say so, an attempt to get down to the detail of the minor adjustment that might be made--I think we should be proceeding now with this motion.
I know that members opposite are well acquainted with the notion of reverse onus. I would suggest we simply pass this motion and that the onus be reversed to those who would seek some small changes, as Monsieur Guimond has mentioned, to bring forward those changes, which our committee can always consider and agree to unanimously before or after November 21. My understanding is, and I think I heard Monsieur Guimond say, that there's nothing to stop our making adjustments as we go to these standing orders.
I'm not persuaded that there has been bad faith on any side in this case. I am persuaded that to everyone's mind the rules seem to have worked fairly well; there might be some wise but minor adjustments to them, and in that context I understand there's nothing to stop this committee from making those adjustments as we go forward.
I think it's time for this committee to get off this issue, in terms of the amount of time we've spent on it, and get on with our other important business.