I just want to come back to a point that Ms. Foote made regarding the rationale for this motion. She said it avoids the risk of having all opposition days pushed back to the end of the session. I think it's important for the record that all Canadians need to recognize that this government has never used that tactic. This tactic was used by a previous Liberal government, and I would agree with her that that would a horrendous way to treat a democratic institution as important as this one.
She also indicated, Mr. Chair, that this was an attempt on our part to change the channel. I would just like to point out again for the record that the channel was changed not by this committee, but by the House of Commons. It was the Speaker of the House of Commons who forwarded to this committee a matter that is of serious importance to every member of this committee, and indeed, Mr. Chair, to all members of Parliament.
We had a situation where a staff member divulged information that shouldn't have been divulged. Here we have an opportunity to possibly establish some rules, some protocol, that would protect members of Parliament, protect Canadians, protect the institution of Parliament. As the Speaker indicated in his ruling, that's really the interest. I think it's important that this committee seriously consider this amendment that's before us. I know Mr. Proulx is really interested in hearing this, but it's really important that we set this matter that's been referred to this committee by the Speaker as something that is of urgent importance.
I want to go back to a couple of other statements Ms. Foote made. She said this motion that's before us is exactly what we have right now. What we have right now, as I understand it, Mr. Chair, is an agreement among all parties to handle supply days in this manner. As I understand it, there is nothing written in the Standing Orders, and I think that's where the big difference comes in, that we are here putting something in writing that, as I pointed out earlier, could hobble this committee as it relates to whether or not this is the best way to deal with the change in the Standing Orders--not just a change in practice, but a change in the Standing Orders.
Again, it comes back to the point that the way it was handled previously by the Liberal government is not in the best interest of democracy. I totally agree with that. I agree with previous speakers who said we do agree this needs to be studied.
Mr. Chair, as Mr. Proulx is trying to get me to hurry here, we do not agree that we as members of Parliament should come to any meeting and suddenly adopt a motion that's put before us without adequate study. I was elected by the members of my riding to represent their interests. Mr. Chair, if I just come here and glibly adopt motions that are put before me, without finding the background, especially as someone who hasn't been around here for a career, like many of the people across the way.... It's important that I have all the information at my fingertips. My constituents expect no less. They expect me to study the issue, to get all the information I can collect, and then make an informed decision on their behalf. I think to do anything less would be a disservice. I assume that all my colleagues feel the same way about their responsibilities here. We don't take it lightly, I don't think any of us do. So why would we, on this particular matter, somehow suddenly just throw out all the expectations that our constituents have sent us here with? I don't think any MP around this table should take it that lightly. I'm puzzled as to why the other MPs sitting here would not want to, as the committee--