It's an excellent point, David. You're exactly right. The process I established was that each party would have the opportunity to bring forward a shopping list of proposed changes. As I mentioned earlier, all of the members of that committee, of which your current parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was a member, went back to their caucuses, held a fulsome discussion on changes they would like to recommend, and came back to the table. Some of the changes that were enacted, frankly, were recommended by members of the opposition, as you well know, David. In fact, had we not been sidetracked by other priorities at the committee, I think there would have been a number of changes that went beyond what we had already done, which was approved by all members.
Historically that's what has always happened. The process has ended with numerous changes being made over the years to the Standing Orders, but always benefiting the way in which Parliament operates. Why has it improved the method in which we operate? It is because all parliamentarians agreed to it; they all saw the benefits. They all saw the rationale behind a change being implemented and agreed that it would improve not just the efficiency of Parliament but the democratic process under which we all operate. That's why throughout history, when this issue of the Standing Orders is examined, it goes almost without saying that unanimous consent must not only be sought but received.
As an example, I listened with great interest to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois showing their perspective on what they would like to see with respect to the discussion paper brought forward by the government. That's healthy. Whether or not the government agrees with any of their perspectives, whether or not opposition members agree with any of their perspectives, the mere fact that they have the ability to express them and present an argument is healthy for democracy. Yet for some reason this government seems hell-bent on denying members of the opposition the ability to discuss in a meaningful way changes that might benefit all of us.
I just can't get my head around that. I simply don't understand it. If some member of the government wants to take the floor, perhaps I would gladly cede my time, if you can simply explain to me why seeking unanimous consent is not a laudable objective.
As I said at the outset, the position that the government continues to maintain is that they as a government want to modernize Parliament.
They do not have that right. Only Parliament has the right to modernize itself.