Do you want me to continue? Just let me know when it's televised.
For those members who don't know, I have a great love of Yiddish proverbs. Mr. Housefather was here earlier with us. I have one in mind now: “Words should be weighed, not counted.” It applies to Mr. Genuis, who spoke before me, and obviously to Mr. Lamoureux, and I know that David appreciates it. I hope my contribution thus far to the debate has been in weighty words. I've tried to reference as much parliamentary material as I can find, demonstrating that the amendment to the motion is very much reasonable.
I think the motion as it stands without this amendment is reckless because of the damage it could do to our institutions. I've mentioned why the institution of Parliament is so important: it's because you don't get a second chance. We have no other House of Commons that we can protect or use as a back-up. If a corporation or not-for-profit business collapses because of poor management, another one will arise to take its place and undertake the service and products they were doing. The service we render to the population of Canada through Parliament is to deliberate, unlike what the Government of Canada's document says, “Reforming the Standing Orders of the House of Commons”, which talks about the adversarial system that we have.
I've explained before that I think that is completely wrong. We are a deliberative body. We are not here to spit out laws at the end of the day and to produce legislation. We are here to deliberate on the matters and concerns that Canadians have shared with us through whatever medium that is.
Speaking to the article I mentioned, the article written by Mr. MacDonald, I'll just finish the citation. It's in the Autumn 2005 issue of Canadian Parliamentary Review. The abstract talks about the fact that Westminster-style governments and Parliaments are steeped in a “thousand year tradition”, and many of the processes originate in historical fights or reactions to external events rather than as conscious decision-making over time.
I don't think anybody thought, as I've demonstrated before, that time allocation and guillotine motions and closure would be used to such an extent. In fact, in the parliamentary debates in Canada, we have seen that initially ministers of the crown have said that, no, in fact it would be only on the off-chance that they might use it. We have seen the complete opposite on both the national energy program and on gun control, and successive governments, Liberal and Progressive Conservative, have done so, and then the Conservative governments that came after. It's not as if anybody is innocent here, and we're not laying blame on anyone. I'm just stating facts for the record.
The same applies to provincial legislatures. The one I want to talk about just a little bit, because it's germane to both the motion and the amendment, involves the way Ontario has changed the standing orders of Ontario's parliament since 1985 and the reaction to those changes, expressed both in the way members of that assembly have done their work and then in the way the government has reacted in producing legislation to move them forward.
This article really talks about Premier Peterson's activities and attempts to negotiate with opposition parties to make changes to the standing orders. In 1997 the Peterson government got a majority in the election and, according to the author, they started to act in whatever way they wanted. Of course, that judgment is subjective. In turn, the opposition parties became more disruptive.
I mentioned before the need to build trust over time, and consensus and co-operation that didn't exist in this case. Let's see where it leads in this particular case as an instructive scenario for the amendment here.
MPP Peter Kormos of the New Democratic Party accused Premier Peterson of lying to the House, a pretty serious charge even here. I have made it my mission never to accuse another member of lying, because it's a serious charge and then causes debate. I think no member purposely misleads the House or lies here, I would hope.
Mr. Kormos then refused to recant, and the Speaker named him. We know that naming used to be a pretty serious form of shaming. Nowadays, I'm not so sure. Maybe some members wear it as a badge of honour; it may be their opportunity to appear in Hansard. I would think not—not for me personally.
The New Democrat House leader challenged the Speaker's ruling on May 29, 1989. The opposition whip refused to join the other two whips to walk into the chamber to indicate that the MPPs were ready to vote and kept the bells running.
Then the Speaker suspended the sitting and deemed the bells to be continued as ringing until the sitting resumed on Friday, June 2, which it so happens, I believe, is the date this report would have to—