Perfect. Thank you for that clarification.
That is one time when “on division” probably should not have been used, but there was also an insufficient number of members told to rise by their lobby assistants at the time. It was a different time. It was the early 1980s, and members were genuinely confused by what was going on. Ending the confusion on the floor, I would like to see that. I'm not opposed to the consideration of allowing more electronics to be built into our desks. Part of me grieves to change the way these desks function right now, because I think they're a nice part of the institution of Parliament, the way they look, the way they feel, the green that is everywhere—very traditional. It's the green we have on these chairs as well.
I think some of these things we keep, and for the same reason we have historical designations for buildings. That's why municipalities do that, to preserve bits of our history before they are torn down and replaced by something more modern, which is exactly the term used in the government's document.
I know that Calgary—lots of you have mentioned this—has been busy tearing buildings down that have a lot of history because it's busy putting up new buildings. Our history has been partially wiped away in this drive to modernize the city, expand the city's ability to densify. We've lost a lot of that tradition, that history we used to have, the LRT we used to have. Light rail used to run and the trams used to run on different streets. It has really changed the way the city looks.
The same way it's changed the look of the city, I'm afraid that by changing the Standing Orders of the House with too short a debate and without having all of us included at the table as equal members, with the certainty that we are equal members through this amendment we have proposed, we are going to lose. That's “we” as parliamentarians, not “we” as the executive. I think the executive stands to gain quite a bit out of this.
Many of us have proposed tweaks and things to study around changing the Standing Orders, but we should do this unanimously around this table so that we can produce a document that parliamentarians who are not on this committee, who have not listened to this debate, who will not read the transcript, have the certainty of knowing that we are united as one in the changes we are proposing to the Standing Orders. Each of us keeps a copy of that in our desks. I know I do because I refer to it when the clerks, or when the Speaker, or when a member makes a reference to a new standing order I have not heard of, or I have not read, or I don't remember.
It's just by chance that I found Standing Order 86(2), which I used to co-second legislation that I agreed with. I think it could be expanded for other purposes as well. There could be other things that we could do with it.
I know that we've used the example of the United Kingdom several times and the rules in the U.K. Parliament that allow for a second chamber, that allow for programming, that allow for many different things to be done. I have here an article written by the former Labour MP for Hendon, who has given the longest parliamentary speech this century. That's quite the fame.