Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member and the question he is raising.
I was informed of the situation about a week ago. I myself approached our clerks, who do such a great job for us, to indicate that I saw a problem developing.
It seems that when we changed the Standing Orders a few years ago, allowing questions to be asked concerning the Board of Internal Economy—prior to that, no questions whatsoever relating to parliamentary spending were allowed—and when we changed to rule about questioning the whip or leader of the opposition in the House, these generally being the spokespersons for the board, that made it possible for a question to be asked in the House. But for other questions, the rule is that an adjournment debate is allowed, what is often called “the late show” in the vernacular.
But when the Standing Orders were changed in the case of the Board of Internal Economy, we did not change the other one. This is most unfortunate, and creates an injustice. I agree with the hon. member on that.
If, in the near future, the clerks could prepare for us the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders, I would be agreeable to discussing it with the other House leaders, with a view to amending the Standing Orders and making things equitable. It seems to me that is the solution.
We frequently find rules in parliamentary law that need to be adjusted. You have just presided over a review of the entire modernization process in which a number of us were involved.
I have met twice with my colleagues in the House. No one on my side of the House raised this, no one had even imagined it.
Under these circumstances, perhaps the hon. member's request could be left pending, rather than doing away with it completely, and we could all focus on changing the rule promptly so that the question could then be allowed. If the Chair could take that into consideration, it seems to me that this would be the way to remedy the situation.