Indeed, Yukon is one of the few places in Canada I haven't had the honour of visiting yet, and along with visiting the Northwest Territories, I do hope to see Canada's beautiful north before too long.
But backing up a little bit, we did talk about the Magna Carta. I'm not going to read it, but I would point out that an interesting fact happens throughout history, beginning with the Magna Carta, going through the Glorious Revolution, and the Reform Acts, and through a number of different activities throughout the development of the United Kingdom's Westminster system. Throughout history, when the monarch, the crown, meaning the queen or the king, gives up power, that power goes somewhere. At times that power goes to Parliament, and at times it goes to the executive. More often than not, in our shared history of the Westminster system, that power has tended to go to the executive, though at times it has gone to Parliament as well. That balance has developed over many years, and unfortunate or fortunately, depending on how we look at it, there are trade-offs. Often it goes to the executive branch, and often it goes to the parliamentary branch.
In observing this, in making this observation going forward, my point is that we are products of our history. We are products of our forebears and those who have gone before us. Certainly, being a Commonwealth country, being a product of the “Mother of Parliaments”, as it's often called, we do pick up many of the traditions, including the role of government and the role of Parliament, as Franks already points out.
Carrying on with his second point, the government certainly has the opportunity to present its legislative agenda. It has significant tools and authority to do so, within the Standing Orders, in the usual practices of the House, and within the apparatus of the public service that goes with it. The government, rightly so as government, does have significant resources at its disposal.
When we go to the second two functions of our Parliament, that is, to hold the government to account and to provide an alternative government, there are fewer resources available to that side. As the opposition, we have to acknowledge this and look at the tools that we do have available, the tools in our tool box, if you will. They are significantly limited when compared to the government's. A government holds the ability to call bills at its discretion. A government has the authority to decide how many hours, how many days, of debate there will be on a government bill. The length of some debates are set out in the Standing Orders, but most are not. The budget motion has a four-day sitting schedule. It's debated for four days, but most bills do not have that length of time. A bill could be debated for five minutes, or it could be debated for five days or five weeks. That flexibility, that option, is entirely in the executive's hands, and it has the ability to do so. An opposition that wants to extend debate has very little options for doing so. In fact, other than the provision that a bill must be debated a minimum of one sitting day before a time allocation motion is introduced, a government that is willing and wishing to proceed with a shorter time frame to debate can do so, and can do so in a maximum of two days, if that is its preference.
I know that in the discussion paper that has been presented, there is a discussion of programming, a discussion of what could be considered permanent time allocation. That is a discussion that has been brought forward. Personally, I think that it would be unfortunate if we were to go that route. The constraints that such a move would place on both the government and the opposition would be unfortunate. You can imagine situations going forward in which a government might indeed wish to have further debate on a matter than what might be allowed within a programming set-up.
I bring these points up to show, first and foremost, that the tools are significantly swayed toward the government within the House, and the opposition is therefore forced to use what tools it has to extend debate, to encourage a more lengthy debate, and to bring attention to certain matters, as the case might be. We're seeing that happen now in the House. We're seeing that playing out now, whether through points of order or through votes in the House. It's making a statement. The opposition is using the limited means it's been provided with.