Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find it somewhat disheartening, given the sincerity of the motion. We brought it forward because it's the right thing to do. We brought it forward because it's been done in the past. We brought it forward because we wanted to make sure this was dealt with before the House closed for this year. Knowing that it's now a day or two off from December 1, we really need to deal with this. This is the committee that can deal with it.
Again, it's about being fair and democratic. It's about acknowledging that we have a role to play in the House of Commons, we have a role to play in this country, and that is to represent the interests of Canadians. Right now we don't know what's going to transpire come the end of 2010. We don't know, based on the discussion we're having today and all the filibustering that's going on, whether or not that fairness will be there in the House, whether or not we will in fact have a fair distribution of opposition days.
So I'm a little concerned about the impression we're leaving here, as opposition members, of our ability to represent the interests of Canadians, as well as of the government's ability to represent the interests of Canadians, and I'm concerned that we respect each other's role and respect the role we all have to play in the House of Commons as elected representatives. To do that, I think we really do have to acknowledge that opposition days are important. They're really important for us to get our message across, for us to speak to policies and procedures and roles that the government is putting forward and to different aspects of legislation. That's one of the ways we get to do that, where we get to have comprehensive debate on policies that the government is putting forward or approaches that the government is taking.
For us to run the risk of what has happened in the past, to have all of our opposition day motions put at the end of the session--we have a really serious problem with that. What has happened in the past need not happen again. There are new players at the table. That's why we're here. We're saying we were really appreciative that the government recognized in 2009 that this was a path we should go down. All the parties in the House recognized that and voted to do exactly what this motion is asking to have done for 2011.
For the government to try to change the channel on us this morning and not to take with sincerity what is being proposed here, and the lines along which it is being proposed.... This is nothing more than making sure opposition days are not crammed in the end of a session, and it is in fact continuing on with a process that is in place now for 2010. If in fact it's something, as Mr. Lukiwski said, that they're sincere about doing, and they acknowledge it's the right thing to do, then what I don't understand is why we can't just vote on it. If he agrees with it, I suspect the vote would pass unanimously.
My fear is that what we're seeing here today is that there's somehow some reluctance to go down this path again. With all due respect to the comments that have been made, that they understand and appreciate where we're coming from with this motion, based on past experience, somehow it begs the question why, then, we're in the situation this morning of debating this. We're debating an amendment and a subamendment, knowing full well that by doing so we're talking out the clock. There will be no vote on this, and we'll still be in the same situation when we leave here at one o'clock as we were when we came in here at 11 o'clock, and we'll be no further ahead.
I guess we can hope that it will be resolved at some other level, but at this point it hasn't been. We have an opportunity, as members of this committee, to do the right thing, to acknowledge that this is what we need to do. We've all said it's what we need to do.
We've all suggested that it's worked, but to suggest, as a former colleague did last week, that we should probably study this, review this, and bring witnesses before the committee, I say witnesses to what? This already exists. This is something that's been practised for the past year, and it's worked well. I think everybody would acknowledge that it's worked well. It's worked in the best interest of democracy, so that Canadians know, when they watch the House of Commons in session, that when we have an opposition day it's being done in a manner that is fair and respectful of all parties in the House, and that all opposition can be put forward and debated and discussed, which is what is supposed to happen in the House of Commons. So I'm at a loss to understand why there is a reluctance to go down that path.
Why, in the name of heaven, would we be suggesting reviewing this? Why would we be suggesting bringing witnesses before the committee? Again, it would just push this out, and we're talking about the timeframe here; we're talking about 2011. In three weeks the House will rise and again we'll be no further ahead.
So I don't have that level of comfort, based on what I'm hearing from the government members on the committee, that this is something they believe in, that they think this is the right thing to do, because I think if they really did believe it was the right thing to do, they would have agreed to vote on this instead of filibustering it.
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, we may very well find ourselves in the same situation again next week if we don't deal with this as a committee, if we don't acknowledge that this is the right thing to do. We don't know at this point whether or not the House leadership is going to be able to resolve this, but we do know it's something that's important. We do know the process has worked. Why would we be second-guessing it now? I don't know.
Everybody, I think, who has been a part of this experience has acknowledged the way the opposition days have been placed in the calendar. It's been in the best interests of all of us. It has enabled us to put forward positions to question the government on policies and issues, and to hear back from the government and to get their reason and the rationale for the path they're going down.
To push it all into the end of the session, to end up with votes taking place and people having to be here and somewhere else...I think when things are planned, when we have an agenda, things work much, much better. I think that's what we should be aiming to do, Mr. Chair, as members of this committee, to ensure the House runs smoothly, in terms of the rules and regulations of the House. I think we have an opportunity, as a committee here, to do what is right. To suggest, as is being suggested by the government members, that we can deal with it later, let's deal with the other issue first, it just begs the question again: if they're committed to this, if they believe this is about democracy, that this is the right thing to do....
As Mr. Lukiwski said, he has no problems at all with the motion. He just wanted to amend it and add a subamendment to that motion. If he agrees with the principle of the motion--and that is in fact that we should be having our opposition days span the legislative agenda instead of being put together at the end of the session--then I really cannot understand. I've tried to understand. I've listened to the government members, but I cannot for the life of me understand what the issue is.
It exists. What we're proposing already exists. It was agreed to by all parties in the House in 2009 that this is the path we will go down. It worked in 2010. We're saying let's do it again in 2011. All we would do here in committee, Mr. Chair, is recommend to the House. The House would vote on this.
I guess I would like to see the motion I put forward last week voted on, but of course that's your call, and as long as you have speakers, it won't be voted on. But having said that, this is the right thing to do. It's about democracy; it's about doing what's right for Canadians.
I'm going to finish up here, because I really don't believe the filibustering that's going on at this committee is in the best interests of Canadians and the people we represent.