In deference to my colleague from the NDP, perhaps I should say that the likelihood of any other party, except for the current government and the Liberal Party, forming government is remote. That is why whenever we have changes to Standing Orders, it should be something that is particularly examined by both the Liberals and the Conservatives, because the likelihood is that they will be the only two parties in Parliament that will be truly affected by them in a meaningful way.
When I say that, normally the Standing Orders talk about procedures that affect the government. Therefore, if there are likely only two parties in Parliament that will assume the mantle of government, then there are only two parties that really have to pay careful attention to any proposed changes to Standing Orders.
This one in particular talks about what should happen to supply days that affect opposition parties. At the risk of repeating myself, I need to point out again to the committee, as I did in my last intervention on Thursday of last week, that while our government has been I think fairly circumspect and fairly upfront with its allocation of supply days to the opposition parties, that was not the case with the previous government. The previous government, in my view, totally abused supply days in an attempt to further its political interests.
We have seen from time to time all governments, regardless of political stripe, allocate supply days and do so in a way that is not totally acceptable to the opposition. By that, I mean rather than allocating a supply day on a long day, such as a Tuesday or a Thursday, the government has from time to time allocated supply days on either a Wednesday or a Friday, which are short days. Usually, the reason for doing that—and I say “usually” because it's not a common occurrence--for assigning a supply day on a Wednesday or a Friday, is to mete out some punishment or retribution to the opposition parties. That's quite common in Parliament.
For example, if an opposition party has tried to delay debate on government orders or proposed legislation, and it does so only for the purpose of obfuscation, of delay for delay, then in order to try to chastise the opposition, it is quite common for the government of the day to allocate a supply day on a short day the next time that supply day comes forward. We've seen that time and time again. We've certainly done that. But what we have not done—and I don't believe any government has done, in my history, at least—is what the former Liberal government did with supply days, and that was to try to bundle them and put them into the last 10 days of a session in order to try to avoid a vote of non-confidence in Parliament.
I point that out because, of course, should the Liberals ever form government again—and I know that one day, perhaps not in the near future, but one day they will—they will be bound by the same procedures and practices that are before us today. In other words, they will be the ones, if and when they form government, to be compelled and obliged to allocate supply days in the same fashion as this motion suggests.
Without fear of contradiction, I think I can point out that had this motion been in effect when the Liberals were last in government, they would not have been too fond of the consequences because it would have prevented them from doing what they did. It would have prevented them from taking all supply days, bundling them, moving them to the end of the supply period, as opposed to giving out supply days on a regular weekly or bi-weekly calendar.
Therefore, Chair, I would suggest that the Liberals take great care in putting motions such as this forward that would make fundamental changes to the procedure and practices of our place with respect to Standing Orders.
Chair, members may wonder what my personal thoughts are on this matter. I'd be pleased to share those with you.