I hear dissent—on division.
In the case of this parliamentarian, from reading this article and the conversation he has on it, he talks about doing this not just because he could but about how important it was for him to do it. He did it to make a point on that particular legislation, “But we do it because we believe our perspective matters—because it might well be your perspective, too.” You just may not want to rise to speak for as long as they do.
We're elected here to be leaders in our communities. I always tell students at the schools I go to not to look to politicians for role models, because we will disappoint them. As it says here, “If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure.” It's up to individual parliamentarians to rise and speak their minds and obstruct a bill when they feel it is necessary, just the way this Labour MP did. It is inefficient. Perhaps their government members said they wished they could change rules once more—they already have programming—to prohibit something like that from happening ever again. Obviously it was of importance to that member. He only did it once. Once in 2005 was enough to make the point that our perspective matters, because you might have it too.
In 2013, eight years later, the House of Commons in the United Kingdom did consider whether or not filibustering should be banned. That was part of the principles in the discussion paper that was produced by the government. One of the things we would like to be able to protect is the opportunity for “extensive debate”, we'll call it, not just filibustering, because that might have a negative connotation.
This article on the Telegraph website—“Filibustering should be banned, say MPs” is literally the headline—states the following:
MPs face being banned from making long-winded speeches to block legislation introduced by backbenchers, under plans to reform Parliament.
A committee examining the way the Commons operates has suggested that the tactic of filibustering—by which MPs speak at length until time for debate runs out on private members' bills—should be ended.
But this isn't about the government. This ending of filibustering is not about the government but about private members. It's about us. It's about how we do our business.
Now, thankfully we don't have that problem here, because it's automatic after two hours of debate that it proceed to the next stage. Our private members' business, which we should guard jealously, does proceed on a track, on a fixed agenda. I think we could have more time devoted to private members' business so that more members would have the opportunity to speak, to propose, and to have their perspectives matter here as well. These are perspectives that I may disagree with. I fully understand that I am saying this knowing that there will be private members' legislation that will be proposed by members of the government caucus and members of my caucus and the New Democrats that will put me in a difficult position when I choose how to vote on them. There will be more opportunities for divided votes within caucuses and among caucuses.
I accept it. I look forward to it. Those are always the best votes, and the most difficult ones. I may agree with the principle but not agree with the process—just like here. I agree with the principle of tweaking the Standing Orders. I don't agree with the process of going forward without it being unanimously agreed to. That is my problem.
I want to see this amendment passed, quite obviously. It's not just because I like the member who moved the amendment. I like the principle of it. Amending the process by which the study will go forth is, I think, a good idea.