I don't think M‑109 needs to deal with this. M‑109 deals with the expiration of debate resulting in something coming to a vote. I believe what happens here is that, upon the expiration of debate, the item simply drops from the Order Paper. It's the opposite problem. Sometimes you want to be able to sustain debate on things because you think you could achieve a result.
What I'm proposing is basically to make it less easy to achieve a result.
Sherry, I'm cheating, and I'm going back and answering one of Michael's questions here through twisting slightly what you asked me. There's the whole idea of delay versus getting on with business quickly and the balancing act that's involved. You do have to be able to get on with business, obviously, but when we have a situation where there's an actual tie vote in the House of Commons, it's interesting what happens in that situation. The Speaker breaks the tie, but the Speaker doesn't stand up and say, “I've thought it over and I like this piece of legislation, so I'm voting for it.” What the Speaker says....
I remember the first time this happened when Peter Milliken was in the chair, he knew that he might have to break a tie one day, so he had a little piece of paper in his pocket, ready for that moment, and he pulled it out and he said that the precedent is that, when the Speaker is breaking a tie, the Speaker always does so in a way that continues the debate on the belief that it might be possible to achieve the necessary level of support, which of course is 50% plus one. Therefore, if it's an item at second reading, the Speaker votes in favour so that it can go forward. If it's an item at third reading—this is obviously a reference to bills—the Speaker votes against it, rather than causing it to leave the House and move on. I think that is the guidance here.
That being said, I think your underlying question is this: Could we beef up the Standing Orders with reference to the debates on the Standing Orders or the process for reviewing the Standing Orders? I agree, and I think something that we don't have room for here, at least it's not stated explicitly, is dealing with practices that are not part of the Standing Orders—so the practices of the House. That's all the stuff that you find in O'Brien and Bosc, which is all about our conventions and practices. I think we should spend some time looking at that.
I think it would be helpful, for example, right now, if we could come to a clearer agreement on what constitutes parliamentary language and what constitutes unparliamentary language, so that we can be clear on what the naughty words are and what the naughty words aren't. Also I think it would be helpful if we could have greater clarity for all of us on this thing we say where you can't do through the back door that which you can't do through the front door. I think a clearer understanding of what that is would be very helpful.
It would mean, when the Speaker stands up and says that's out of order or when the Speaker declines to do so, there would be more legitimacy. We would all say what he or she is doing we support, even if we didn't get what we wanted on the point in question. There would be greater support for the Speaker's actions. That's the definition of legitimacy.