Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate this afternoon in the debate on an opposition motion. The opposition, at least the third party in this Parliament, starts off with the premise that Parliament, as an institution, is broken. Parliament is not broken.
Yes, the previous government lost the trust of the Canadian people. Yes, it was defeated because it lost that trust. However, that is not to say the institution itself is wrong. I say that to both parties across the way. I see that in their speeches, in their comments and elsewhere.
When I hear from members of the Reform Party that Parliament as an institution needs to be turned completely upside down and changed because it does not work, I say they are wrong. When members of the Bloc Quebecois say that they think the country should separate because people disliked the previous government, I say they too are wrong. What was wrong was not Parliament. What was wrong was not this great institution. What was wrong was the public office holders of the last Parliament and that is not the same. It is high time we started to think on those terms.
I read this motion today. Listen to it, Mr. Speaker, you who are so knowledgeable in all our rules. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Standing Orders-
Whoever heard of anything so preposterous. The government does not have standing orders, the House has standing orders. I say to my colleagues across the way, many of whom have not been members very long, surely they could learn that the rules of the House are the rules of the House and not the rules of the government. Changing the rules is not done by the government. If the government decided to change the rules arbitrarily they would be the first to criticize.
The standing orders of this House are amended by and on the advice of a parliamentary committee which usually presents a unanimous report to the House. This committee report is tabled in the House and adopted by the House and then the rules of procedure are changed.
Some members will remember in the last Parliament when the then government took a report from a standing committee on amending the rules and chose to adopt only some of the rule changes. It was condemned by everyone, not because it had changed rules unilaterally but because it had not changed all of the rules at once as recommended in the unanimous report. It had upset the balance which is so vital to ensuring that the government can govern and that the opposition can hold the government to account. That was seen as wrong.
The member across the way and her colleagues are proposing that the government on its own change the standing orders of the House. With due respect, it is absurd. It is completely absurd that a government would try to do that.
The member wants the government, in changing the rules unilaterally, perhaps even against the wishes of the oppositions, to produce some sort of a formula to debate and to vote on petitions.
I bring members' attention to today's Order Paper of the House of Commons. I highly recommend it to members of Parliament. It is a very useful document. It tells how this place works.
Like many other members, I have Motion M-218 on today's Order Paper.
I can see for instance that the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has one, and so does the hon. member for Anjou--
1623
Rivière-des-Prairies. It is unusual that not one member from the Reform Party has a motion on the Order Paper of the House. None, not one member from the Reform Party.