Thank you very much.
My point is that we do have time, because this would take effect next year. Whether we want to make, or deem it prudent to make, changes to the standing order when in fact we have been working on a supply day system by convention--a system, I might add, that's been working fairly well, in my view--is something that we need to discuss in earnest. I would certainly like to have as witnesses not only procedural experts, but also, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, the House leaders, and ask them directly what kind of progress, if any, they are making on this.
One of the things that we have been trying to do in Parliament over the course of the last several weeks is to increase the level of decorum in the House of Commons, particularly during question period. I think we've been having a positive effect to that end. We've been able to achieve that, Mr. Chair, through an agreement among the House leaders. We have discussed this. We have all agreed that the level of decorum in years past has been shockingly poor, and I'm going to choose my words carefully here. I could certainly use stronger words, but I won't. There has been a general agreement among House leaders to try to control their own caucuses and to try to raise the level of decorum during question period.
Yes, there has been the odd flare-up from time to time, but it has not even been close to the raucous behaviour, the childish and boorish behaviour, that we've seen in years past. I think that's a testament to the House leaders in their willingness to get together and agree on something that really makes Parliament a better place and a better environment for all of us.
I don't particularly have a problem with this motion. I honestly don't, because I was in opposition when the previous Liberal government stacked all of the opposition days toward the very end of a session in order to try to avert a vote of non-confidence. At the time I thought that was undemocratic; I still do, and if our party, now that we're in government, tried to do something similar, I would have the same feelings, so I don't in spirit have a whole bunch of difficulty with this motion.
My difficulty, and I will keep repeating it, is the manner in which it was presented here today. I merely suggested that we take until next Tuesday to go back our respective parties to consult with our House leaders, their staff, their deputy House leaders, and, in my case, the parliamentary secretaries to allow us to make a determination on how we wish to proceed.
I honestly think we could get through this quickly if we had a brief study of this motion, and by “study” I mean allowing this committee to ask for and speak to certain individuals who would appear as witnesses--nothing more, nothing less. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. In fact, if you looked at the operations of almost every other standing committee, that request would be agreed to with unanimity among the committees.
I do have some difficulties with the manner in which this motion was put forward, but let's talk about the process that we're in right now and the convention that we have been working under for the last little while with respect to supply days. I have not seen, or at least I have not heard, any great complaints from any of the opposition parties about the manner in which our government has allocated supply days. Some may say that they would prefer a Tuesday as opposed to a Thursday, for the simple reason that many members like to go back to their constituencies on Thursday evening. Quite frankly, some of them seem to disappear shortly after question period; consequently, allocating a supply day on a Thursday might inconvenience some of their own caucus members by not allowing them to go home as quickly as possible.
Chair, that complaint, I would suggest, is a very minor complaint. We have not been making a practice of placing supply days on what we call short days--in other words, on Wednesdays, when we have half a day, or on Fridays, when we in effect have half a day. That is a practice that other governments have used, sometimes, in their opinion, for a good reason. It's usually done to try to punish an opposition party that has done something that has not sat well with the government of the day, and so as a way of retribution and punishment, a sitting government would at the odd time put an opposition day on a Friday, knowing very well that many of the opposition parties' caucus members usually travel back to their ridings on Fridays. That would be a form of retribution to say that if you jerk around with us, we'll jerk around with you.
We have not made a practice of doing that. When we have had difficulties with the opposition parties, I believe we have been able to work those difficulties out or at least discuss them, if not actually come to a complete agreement. We have been able to discuss them at House leaders meetings or at least at the House leaders level. I know many of the agreements that we've had in place informally over the course of the last number of months have come about as informal conversations between House leaders--not necessarily at the Tuesday House leaders meetings, but at private meetings. Frankly, I appreciate the willingness of the opposition parties to engage in those kinds of discussions.
We all know there will be many times, perhaps more often than not, when all parties will agree to disagree. There will be some fundamental differences of opinion on certain issues, particularly when it comes to legislation, that we will simply not be able to agree on or even come close to agreeing on. I appreciate that. I understand that it's a function of Parliament and certainly a function of a minority Parliament.
Having said that, I believe this motion is something on which we can find some agreement--perhaps not unanimity, but I certainly think we can find consensus. I have stated on the record, and our government has stated on the record, our objection to the way the Liberals in their prior years of government handled the business of supply and supply days. Frankly, I thought what they tried to do to usurp democracy was unconscionable. They were taking supply days, in effect, out of the hands of the opposition parties in their own attempt to avert a vote of non-confidence. We have not seen fit to manipulate supply days in the same fashion and, quite frankly, I applaud our House leaders who have taken this approach. I hope the opposition parties recognize that we've done so in an attempt to be as fair and democratic as possible.
Now, will we continue to deliver supply days in the same fashion as we have over the past several months? I can't answer that. Only time will tell, but I can say with certainty that our intentions are honourable. We do not see the need, nor frankly do we see the necessity at this point in time, to try to use supply days as a form of either punishment or reward. We simply see that as a right for opposition parties to bring forward motions they feel or deem to be important and to allow those opposition parties to debate fully and completely their motions on long days.
Let me give you a specific example. I'll say this to my friends from the Bloc, and this is something we could have done today. Yesterday, during routine procedures, I brought forward the notices of motions and production of papers. I asked for all notices of motions and production of papers to stand.
The Bloc did not concur with that.
That event, in and of itself, is probably something that happens perhaps once in a decade, maybe once every second decade. Normally it's always agreed upon, but the Bloc was perfectly within its right procedurally when it said no. Quite frankly we, and I personally, were not quick enough off the mark to ask for that motion to be transferred for debate, which in effect would have negated what they were trying to accomplish.
Nonetheless, a normal reaction would be for many parties to find some form of retribution. We could have done something today, very simply, when the Bloc whip asked to defer the vote to Tuesday, which was an accommodation for their members who would probably want to go home Thursday night. If we had wanted to be meanspirited and had wanted a little payback when they asked for unanimous consent, any one of us, myself included, could have said no. That would have forced a vote tonight. It would have forced their members to stay here tonight for a vote, and it could have been seen as a form of payback, of retribution. Quite frankly, many in other parties would probably have suggested exactly that as the course of action to take--in other words, to use the old hockey analogy, “You cut me, I'll cut you”.
We didn't do that. We could have also, for example, brought forward a concurrence motion, so we would have had three hours of debate in the middle of their opposition day. We did not do that. Why? Because, quite frankly, Chair, we don't see the benefit of taking that kind of action at this point in time.
My point is simply this: our government is not here to try to manipulate or punish opposition parties by using supply days as a hammer. The previous Liberal government did. We didn't appreciate that, and I know the Bloc and the the NDP didn't appreciate that. We were all well within our rights to complain, and we complained vociferously about that.
I believe changing a standing order or dealing with an issue as important as the scheduling of supply days necessitates at least some internal discussion among our own parties. The manner in which the motion was presented today did not allow us to do that. My friend Judy had said the motion could be debated and perhaps voted on today, but even though I appreciate the fact that she offered to allow us to debate, I still believe that the intent was to try to have this motion determined today by a vote of this committee.
As I said earlier, Chair, I believe that when this motion is voted upon, whether in its original form or as amended, the opposition will have their way if they vote collectively. That's a given. I'm merely suggesting that we have an opportunity to come to the next meeting prepared, as opposed to forcing us to vote on something for which the new committee members in particular are completely unprepared.
I think that it's a reasonable request. I don't think that any member of the opposition should take any great offence at that suggestion.