The government has no role and no right to arbitrarily and unilaterally take any steps to change the Standing Orders for what they call “efficiency” and “modernization”. That is singularly the role of Parliament. It has been that way for decades. It has been that way for generations. I'll speak to that and give a bit of a historical perspective a little later on this evening to illustrate and to underscore my point.
Let me now change gears just a bit and tell you what I would really like to discuss this afternoon and this evening. It is to try to sincerely find a way, or at least offer some potential solutions, to get us beyond this impasse, because this is not going to end. The opposition is not going to give up and let the debate collapse. We simply will not allow that to happen.
Mr. Christopherson, who knows me well, and better than probably anyone here except for maybe Mr. Simms, knows that during the time we sat together on the procedure and House affairs committee in the last Parliament.... I, of course, was the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and was taking the lead on almost every discussion on motions or government bills. He knows one or two things about me. The primary thing he knows is that when I give my word, my word is my bond.
On many occasions, Mr. Christopherson and I would disagree—and rightfully so, being on opposite sides of the table—sometimes vehemently. He also knows that on occasion—not frequently, but on occasion—when either Mr. Christopherson or his colleague Craig Scott, who I miss dearly, frankly.... I want to take a moment to say that sometimes I hope we can all recognize the value of parliamentarians who are not members of our own political party.