Absolutely.
That leads into a point that I think this committee would be interested in, which is that we are not the only parliament in the world. We are not the only legislature. We don't have a monopoly on good ideas. We're not the best legislature in the world, and we're not the worst either. I don't think we could ever find one perfect, shining example of the perfect way of doing things, but that doesn't mean we can't look to our colleagues internationally for best practices. We can look for opportunities to improve this place, and I think we can do that meaningfully.
The committee's report on a family-friendly House was an exceptionally good first step, and I think there's a lot more this committee can do. Where the challenge for the opposition rests is in doing so within the time period set forth by the motion, without the subsequent amendment that we're speaking of.
I was speaking a little on Standing Order 11, removal from the House. In a situation in the Ontario legislature, if a member doesn't leave willingly—if they are required to be escorted out by the Sergeant-at-Arms because they refuse to do so—they are not only suspended for that day. They are suspended for the entire session and cannot re-enter the legislative chamber until a new election or a prorogation of the legislature. It's a significant issue for a legislator to be banned from exercising their duties in the legislature for a significant period of time—potentially months, potentially years, depending on when a legislature may prorogue—so it's a significant concept.
In the case of Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Hillier, they refused to leave, so the Speaker ordered them suspended for the remainder of the session. They simply stayed there for several days, sleeping there overnight. The Speaker made special exceptions for certain issues that needed to be dealt with that wouldn't have been appropriate within a chamber, but nonetheless they were required to stay there for a period of time. When they finally lost interest, they eventually left.
Incidentally, now that I think about it, as luck would have it and as I mentioned at the beginning, today is Tartan Day, and I believe it was actually Tartan Day when this happened. One of the members was wearing a kilt that time, so he was wearing the same kilt and the same outfit for several days after living and sleeping in the legislature.
I say that as an example of a provincial legislature that more forcefully and more frequently uses this concept of naming. I'm a new member in the House of Commons. I have served here for a year and a half, and I know there are more experienced members. I think Mr. Richards has been here since 2008.
Mr. Chair, I know you were here in previous Parliaments, and Mr. Simms as well.
When I started researching this project, I was struck by the use of this Standing Order in Parliament. At the time, I titled my paper “What's in a Naming: The Speaker's Use and Disuse of Standing Order 11”. I didn't say “misuse”, because it's not being misused, it's just not being used. It piqued my interest and my curiosity to really see what was going on with this standing order. It's an example of parliamentary procedure and standing orders evolving, changing, and being applied differently based on, first, the context of Parliament—who's there and what's happening; second, the individual Speaker—some Speakers have different styles; and third, just a general public awareness of these types of things.
Certainly, if a Speaker is calling a member to order and then having them removed, it creates a bit of a buzz. It creates a bit of excitement for the media, seeing the Sergeant-at-Arms escort someone out of the chamber.
There are a few different concepts there that, I think, have influenced the change—