Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think a lot of times parliamentarians are a little bit like university students. The promise of free food tends to motivate people from time to time. I'm not too, too far removed from university, so I do remember that.
Going back to the discussion among Commonwealth colleagues and the importance of having that discussion among the House leaders, it really does fall to the government House leader to ensure that the government is operating in a manner that is consistent with the usual practices of the House and in conjunction and consultation with her opposition colleagues.
I'm reminded of a British play called This House. If anyone has the opportunity to see it, I think it would be a great opportunity to learn a little bit about the usual channels and how they operate. The play takes place in the 1970s under Ted Heath and later under Margaret Thatcher, in opposition. It basically recounts the discussions and negotiations, the hijinks and shenanigans, of the chief whips and the deputy whips of the government and opposition parties and how they cajoled, debated, and convinced other members to vote a certain way to make certain things happen, things as simple as pairing.
We haven't had as strong a history of pairing here in Canada as we've had in the United Kingdom. This play talks a little about that. Pairing very much rests on a trust, a trust that the two parties, the two halves of Parliament, will actually hold true to their agreement. There were examples in the United Kingdom during those years when the parties were in what they call a hung Parliament—we call it a minority Parliament—in which there were a small number of seats separating the government from the majority. There are examples used of government and opposition whips and leadership going back on their word on a pair and sending through a member to vote, when in fact there had been an agreement not to vote.
Once that trust breaks down, the operation of the usual channels tends to break down with it, and at one point, and this is a historical fact, not necessarily a playful exaggeration in the play, the usual channels were closed, and pairing was no longer an option for a period of time in the United Kingdom in Westminster, because that trust wasn't there.
Without the trust of House leadership, the trust of the whips, this place can't operate, whether it's here, in the United Kingdom, or in other Westminster systems.
I heard Mr. Graham mention earlier some of the usual practices of the House that aren't necessarily written down. For example, the prime minister is mentioned next to nowhere in the Constitution. I believe the only reference to the prime minister in our constitution acts, and we have a number of constitution acts now, is in a former part in which, at the time, Prime Minister Mulroney was required to call a first ministers conference. The prime minister isn't in that position, and the cabinet, for that matter, isn't referenced in the constitution acts. That doesn't mean that their positions are nonetheless constitutional. We do have a lengthy unwritten constitution, like the United Kingdom, but it is an unwritten constitution governed by certain unwritten constitutional principles, those constitutional principles being adjudicated by the courts, in some cases, but certainly by past practice as well.
I bring that up because I think that when the government tries to ram changes through the Standing Orders, through a heavy-handed process, we can always turn back to the more traditional way of doing things, by consensus, certainly, which is what the amendment to the motion proposes, and through the evolution of changes to the way we operate, the usual practices of the House. We'll often hear that phrase in the House of Commons. The government House leader or the opposition House leader, or any member for that matter, will often stand up on a motion and typically say, “notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House”.
That usual practice of the House covers those things that aren't necessarily written down in our Standing Orders or in our authorities. It is a challenge to enumerate every single type of thing, but we have found, in the past, that evolving the way our House operates, evolving the way in which we go about our business, is a successful way of doing things.
Certainly it has been brought up by other speakers—Mr. Christopherson, for example, and others—so I won't spend too much time on it, but the simple scheduling of votes, deferring votes to a certain time of the day that may be a little more convenient for members, is an exceptionally useful way of doing things. It didn't require a drawn-out process of revising the Standing Orders. It was done by the agreement of parties, with the co-operation of party whips and House leaders.
The ability to have votes after question period, rather than in the evening, is certainly a beneficial opportunity for members, who can go about other business of the House, or who may have the opportunity to go home to spend a little time with their families.
I'm not a permanent member of this committee, but I do commend the committee—through you, Mr. Chair—for the past studies on efforts to make the House of Commons more family friendly.
I took to heart Mr. Christopherson's comments yesterday about the points system and the disclosure of the cost of family members. That is a major concern for a lot of family members, whether they come to Ottawa or not.
I'm blessed to have two young kids who travel with me from time to time, although not every week. I am lucky enough that they're not in school yet. I like to say that they're “portable”. They do come back and forth with me. I have a 10-month-old son, and a daughter who is a little over two and a half—going on 30. She is certainly a character.
We take our work home with us from time to time. I don't think any of us goes home at night from this place or in our ridings with an empty briefcase. We all have documents, and we have conversations with our spouses and our kids. They certainly pick up on things.
My wife texted me earlier this morning. Our daughter likes to watch a show called Paw Patrol. It's on Netflix. It's a Canadian show, actually. She's allowed to watch one episode, which is about 15 minutes long. At the end of the episode this morning, my wife told her it was time to turn off the TV, to which my daughter replied, “I vote no.” My wife said, “Well, I vote yes,” and then my daughter yelled, “Debate!”