Essentially, the Conservatives are suggesting that we shorten by much more than four years the fixed election date of any government in the future. Even in a minority Parliament, no government would be able to be in power for up to four years, which has been the tradition.
Without commenting on the Conservatives putting it forward, Mr. Knight, is that really the implication of this subamendment? I know that you wouldn't comment on their motivations for that. I can comment on that politically. I wouldn't ask you to do that. This is just in terms of what's implied here. Would this bind us to changing essentially a tradition of the House of Commons?
Just for context, I sat here and listened for two years to the Conservatives telling me that we couldn't operate virtually, in the middle of the pandemic, because they cared more about parliamentary tradition than they did about getting things done during the pandemic. They lectured me on that for two bloody years—excuse me, for two years—and fought us tooth and nail every step of the way for making a change to the Standing Orders that would allow us to actually get work done for Canadians during the pandemic. I find it hard to believe that they would be so willing to abandon a tradition, a set of rules in Parliament, that has been around for quite some time with regard to a four-year term.
Mr. Knight, can you clarify that this is the implication here, that it would be shortening that four-year term?