Ms., I'm sorry. I appreciate Ms. Duncan listening, and hopefully I haven't bored her.
I'm going to go back to the tradition for changing the Standing Orders and harken back to the report done on March 28 for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I was given this the last time we were here.
I believe it goes back to 1913. From 1913 to now, there have been 39 changes to the Standing Orders. For a great portion of them, if not all, members were able to come to unanimous consent. There might have been recorded divisions, but, nonetheless, the changes passed.
The reason I say that is that members of Parliament had the opportunity to vote and have a say. What we're seeing right now and what we've heard from the House leader is that she specifically said they will not give the Conservatives a veto over their campaign promises. Talk about being open and transparent. Talk about being arrogant. That was an arrogant comment. I'm not assuming that Ms. Chagger is arrogant in her personal life or away from the House, but that was an arrogant comment. It's no different from when Ms. Sahota made the comment, and I think she said this last week as well, that they never said there would be consensus or that consensus was needed, or their comments that they didn't want things to change and that every member's role would be important.
These comments can be taken out of context. They may not have been put forth arrogantly, but it's like sending an email in all caps. When my kids text me, Mr. Chair, and it's all caps, I'm like, “Why are you screaming?” They send me back a question mark or an emoji, or whatever it's called, with a weird face, and I say, “Look at what you sent me”.
It goes back to my comment about intent. There's a method to my madness. It's not for me to understand what that person's intent is. The responsibility lies solely with the person to communicate better.
The comment she made was that they would not give the Conservatives a veto over their campaign plan. How is that working collaboratively? It's not, so what's the message we get as the opposition or as Conservatives? They didn't mention the NDP. It's that our opinion doesn't count. It's not even our opinion. It's those who elected us.
Again, we're not here for people to hear my voice. Going back to the privilege of freedom of speech, I'm here to speak on behalf of my constituents. The comment that they are not going to give the Conservatives a veto over their campaign plans is really saying that they will not give those ridings that elected Conservatives a voice. They don't care what they say. She also meant the NDP, so far be it for the NDP and the ridings that elected an NDP representative or a Conservative—