Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be rising in the House today to share a few remarks on Motion No. 109, put forward by my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. This motion specifically looks at the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

For constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who might be watching this debate, I realize that whenever we talk about the Standing Orders, to people outside of this place it is a bit of inside baseball. However, the Standing Orders are extremely important, not only to the members who serve in this House but also to our constituents, because they are essentially the bylaws by which we operate. They spell out the procedure and practice of this place and set up the rules for debate, how voting can occur, how motions can be presented, and so on and so forth. They are extremely important, because while many Canadians may not be intimately aware of them or familiar with them, they are very important to allow me, as a member, and all of my colleagues to do our jobs in this place. Those rules are important because, in order to do our job properly, we need those rules. I have to be able to effectively represent the constituents of my riding, as every member does.

The Standing Orders are important, and probably even more so for opposition members. When I was first elected to the House of Commons in 2015, my first four years in this place were in opposition to a majority government. The incredible amount of power that a majority government wields is quite awesome to behold because, of course, it has the votes to win on every motion and every bill. As the opposition, when we are faced with a majority government, knowing it has the votes necessary to prevail in every instance, the only thing we have left is the rules of the House, the Standing Orders.

Majority governments have to walk a fine line. They cannot just barge their way through everything, because the opposition can use the Standing Orders of the House to create a real logjam. For every action, there can be an equal and opposite reaction. I recall that frequently, during those first four years of my time in the House of Commons, when the Liberal majority government behaved too much like a bully, there would be a reaction where we could tie up the House of Commons in procedural shenanigans. That is one of the options that an opposition can use to make its displeasure felt.

One of the biggest instances of that would be back in 2017, which, of course, was the famous filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee. At that time, the government was trying to unilaterally change the Standing Orders. We have often tried to change them based on a consensus model, but the changes that the Liberals were proposing to the Standing Orders at the time would have, effectively, neutered the opposition's powers to hold the government to account in this place. Of course, it was a non-starter for all of the opposition parties.

One of the ways in which we protested against these proposed changes to the Standing Orders was to use the Standing Orders to launch our protest. I remember that, at that time, the procedure and House affairs committee went through a filibuster that lasted, I think, over 50 hours. There were frequent times in the House of Commons when the legislative agenda of the day was interrupted through dilatory motions and vote calls. It was all in an effort to make the opposition's displeasure known to the government. The Liberals did eventually back down, so the Standing Orders are quite important.

I will now get to Motion No. 109 and what is being proposed by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston. Essentially, several changes are being proposed in this motion, but it is really about improving the way the House can amend the Standing Orders by making it harder for the majority of the House to impose its will on the minority. It comes down to the model where a consensus is important. I am proud to support this motion. This is a very legitimate and proper motion being proposed on the Standing Order changes. We fundamentally believe that no one party should be doing this without the consent of the opposition.

Let us go through some of the details here. One of the first parts is that the government cannot use a provision that gives a minister the right to move a motion for which unanimous consent was denied. The government would not be able to use closure. A previous question could not be moved in order to prevent the tabling of amendments. The motion would also increase the amount of time in debate for concurrence of a committee report that contains changes to the Standing Orders. The motion would change how the House deals with private members' motions and opposition motions that propose amendments to the Standing Orders.

Instead of the House voting on the motion, the vote would be on referral of the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, otherwise known as PROC, which would then have 75 sitting days to report on the matter. Motion No. 109 itself is going to be referred to PROC to study these changes and report to the House on the matter within that time frame.

Again, all in all, this is a very reasonable proposal. For all the reasons I outlined, it is something that I am going to support. I realize that, for anyone listening to this debate, this is very much inside baseball. However, I can assure people outside the House of Commons that these kinds of changes are extremely important. They allow us to do our job, and I think that this is an important injection of fairness into how we amend the future.

Alistair MacGregor

$600,966.00