Now let's talk about the Standing Orders themselves, why they are so important, and why they have to be treated with such a great deal of respect. There can be abuses. I've given a couple of examples already, and there are many more where a government in a majority situation could use the Standing Orders to benefit themselves politically. That is simply not the purpose or the intent or the objective of Standing Orders. Our legitimate fear is that with the proposed changes you are bringing forward, you—meaning the government—would have the right to abuse the ability and the rights of opposition members to do their job. That's simply not in the cards.
I'll give you two examples. You are suggesting, for example, that answers to questions on the Order Paper be extended from 45 days to 65 days. Why? I've never heard a good answer as to why. It's been 45 days for as long as I can remember. I gave examples of how, when the Liberals were in opposition, they tried to kneecap the government by asking questions that were so detailed and so lengthy that it took almost a full staff of people within individual departments to do nothing but answer questions on the Order Paper. It was a tactic used by the opposition, but we didn't say, “Okay, let's change the timing from 45 days to 65 days to give us more time.”
We left it the way it was, and had we wanted to change it from 45 days to 65 days, we would have gone to an all-party committee and asked for unanimous consent. You guys haven't done that. You want to make those changes unilaterally, and to whose benefit? It's to your benefit, to the government's benefit, to the Liberals' benefit. It's not to the benefit of parliamentarians. It's to the benefit of one party and one party only. That's simply not the way we should be approaching this very serious issue.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that I've been given an opportunity to speak, and I've talked briefly on some of my experiences and why I feel this to be important, but I'm going to wrap up now and cede my time, or at least give the time back, to my colleague, Mr. Nater, because I have an appointment at eight o'clock.
I just want to leave the government with this. Even though it may be repetitive, it's certainly relevant, and the two Rs are what we're looking for when we have a filibuster going like this: relevance and repetition. The relevancy of this is not lost on anyone. I know that. This is a serious subject, which should be dealt with in a like manner.
I can only stress that—if government members were on this side of the table and we were on that side of the table, and we were attempting to do what you are attempting to do—there would be holy hell to pay, without question, and you know that as well as I do.
We're not going to back off from this fight, nor should we, and I'm not asking you to put up a white flag of surrender. I'm merely suggesting that the government come to its senses and try to work meaningfully with members of the opposition. If it truly believes the changes it is recommending to the Standing Orders are in the best interests of all parliamentarians, it shouldn't be a difficult argument to convince members of the opposition. That is all I'm asking the government to consider and to consider seriously.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to continuing this discussion next week.