I'm not sure what it is, but I'm attached to it for the rest of this session anyway, but thank you for that.
I'll go specifically to what you said, because I think that's the spirit of what we're doing here: to go back and forth on the specific questions or comments.
There are two things. Number one, yes, Parliament is supreme, but I don't think that precludes us from trying to modernize it in a way that is widely encompassed. To me, there's a restrictive order by which you set up a motion. I'll give you an example. Ms. Sahota brought up the McGrath report, and Mr. Christopherson brings it up quite a bit. Everyone talks about how lovely it was in the sense that it was a consensual report. It received unanimity, by which all the recommendations went through. But I have right here the motion that set up that particular study, and this motion does not require unanimity whatsoever.
Let me give another example. Mr. Scott Reid changed the Standing Orders in a private member's motion several years ago, which I voted for. It was on the election of the Speaker. Instead of doing an election each round, it was a preferential ballot. He didn't ask for unanimous consent, not once. Now, I didn't fault him for that. Forty-one per cent of members of Parliament voted against him on his motion, but the majority ruled on that and I think we have an effective rule.
Going back to your second point, the discussion paper, I wouldn't describe it as all-knowing, and I've already admitted to this right now. Scott Reid, the same person, has talked quite a bit but spoke a lot of sense to a lot of things. He questioned our discussion paper and the initiative for the Speaker to take omnibus legislation and divide it. Now does the Speaker have the role by which to do that? In some cases, the Speaker may not. She or he may not have that ability to do it. I was listening to that, thinking to myself that he's got something there. He might be right. Therefore, that part of the discussion paper should be questioned and should be challenged. It inspired me to do the motion, but that discussion paper also challenged me to challenge it.