A few others brought their laundry to my last dissertation and started doing laundry in the middle of my presentation, but that's a fair comment, a fair question.
I'll give you an honest answer: I don't know. I honestly don't know. My sense is that we have no real desire to extend this. I honestly do not believe that there is any real willingness on our behalf to filibuster for the next three or six meetings, or whatever it is.
I think, quite frankly, that there is some merit in what you're suggesting. Whether it would be in this exact form, I can't say, and that's why I'm asking for some time to do a consult. My personal view is that no government should be able to arbitrarily manipulate supply days. When I say “arbitrarily”, I'm referring again to the practice of your former caucus when you were in government.
Granted, I know there will be times when opposition parties will be given a supply day or given notice of a supply day on a particular day of the week that they don't appreciate. That's just going to happen. It's the nature of Parliament. There will be times when we engage in some difficult discussions. There will be times when we will feel that the opposition is being unreasonable, and you have procedural levers at your disposal to do what you wish. We as government also have levers at our disposal.
Can I suggest or confirm or guarantee that you will get everything you wish or ask for or desire in terms of the timing of your opposition days? No, I can't say that, but I can tell you in all honesty that we have no really compelling reason at this point in time to manipulate supply days in the same fashion in which they were manipulated by previous governments. I am simply suggesting that in my view it is appropriate to allow a little bit of time for all members of this committee to consult with their own caucuses or their own House management teams to determine how they wish to proceed with this motion.
It could be as simple as some small changes in the wording of the motion, not the spirit of the motion. The spirit, I think, is quite clear. The spirit of this motion is simply to allow the opposition parties to have some certainty on when their opposition or supply days will be held, some predictability that they will be held in a timely fashion, and some assurance that the government will not be able to arbitrarily package them all together within, say, a five-day or seven-day period at the end of a session to try to avoid an uncomfortable vote. I understand that. I appreciate that. I think, quite frankly, that it is a legitimate request. I'm merely saying that the fashion in which this was presented to us is not reasonable for the government. Regardless of the sincerity of Judy's intent or wording, which I appreciate and am not questioning, it does not allow us an opportunity to do a consult with the people that we need to consult with.
Clearly this motion was well thought out by the Liberals. They brought it here with a purpose. They made the motion with the full knowledge that we had a full agenda in front of us to continue our examination of the Chief Electoral Officer's report, yet they obviously felt that from a strategic standpoint it would be in their best interests to bring this motion forward today and present it in the fashion in which they did. We fundamentally disagree.
It is their right to do so. There are no objections there. We are simply saying that we should be given until at least the next meeting to come back with a position or perhaps an amendment, or perhaps not. Allow us at least that amount of time to do the proper consultations and to come fully prepared to discuss this motion at the next meeting. We want nothing more and nothing less.
I sense, Mr. Chair, that we can achieve a resolution to this before we break for Christmas, and that's what is of paramount importance here. I can understand that the opposition parties wish to have certainty before they come back from the Christmas break. They wish to know with certainty that they will have supply days in a fair and democratic fashion. I have no doubt this is what they are trying to achieve here.
Quite frankly, as I mentioned on several occasions in the last few minutes, I think it's quite within their--