Let the record show that I did not smash any glass out of frustration or anything. That wasn't me.
As I was saying, the argument about the amount of legislation passed doesn't really count.
There's one thing that I'll mention now and again a little later. Actually, I'll do it now and just segue into this, because it deals with private members' business again. It's an observation about private members' business, because there has been talk about doing more of it differently.
I've made a few suggestions that could be considered by the committee, but again, I just don't think there is enough time to do it, and I would not want to impose it upon parliamentarians.
I think we all jealously guard that one slot we get to propose a private member's bill or a private member's motion for debate. I think we all jealously protect it because that is our one opportunity. Some of us may be here only once—or twice, if we're fortunate—and if you're only here once, that could be your one great contribution to Canada: to have the debate and to know, win or lose the vote, that in these halls people debated your idea. Wherever you got it from—your constituents, your faith-based community, whatever it is—it will be debated here. All of us hope for that one moment when we can get that done.
I've taken advantage quite often of Standing Order 86(2) on co-seconding, and I'll read it out just so we understand which one I'm talking about:
Notwithstanding the usual practices of the House, not more than twenty Members may jointly second an item under Private Members' Business and may indicate their desire to second any motion in conjunction with the Member in whose name it first appeared on the Notice Paper, by so indicating, in writing to the Clerk of the House, at any time prior to the item being proposed.
That is, prior to it being debated.
Why can't we use this list to prioritize private members' bills? If I propose a private member's motion for which I can get a lot of support from other members, could we not find a way to make it a priority, as opposed to simply using the lottery system? It's a proposal, but it would have to be substantively considered at committee.
Private members' business could be its own study. I think you would have a great deal of interest from parliamentarians in how the government and the House leadership of the different caucuses treat our private members' business. As I said, we all guard it jealously. We get one chance. We can table as much of it as we want. I have tabled two motions already, M-93 and M-72, on issues that I care about, but I know that many members haven't yet taken advantage of that opportunity to table as many extra ones as they want.
Could we also use an amended version of Standing Order 86(2) to potentially avoid a vote? If we could get all members to co-second, why would you need a vote? Couldn't you say “on division” and just continue? That's if division is even necessary. Could we look at how it's dealt with in terms of new opportunities to withdraw co-seconding? Also, how would amendments be treated?
I raise this point because, again, private members' business is often raised when we talk about amending the Standing Orders. If this committee were to proceed—
