Mr. Speaker, I have been here for many hours listening with great interest to the debate. In some way it is a verbal creation of a Rorschach test. It has been very free ranging and that is good. It has covered a broad spectrum of items which is always interesting. It is sometimes difficult to discern, because we are in fact debating a motion. The order paper as I understand it refers to the subamendment of the member for Yellowhead.
I have heard a number of interesting assertions and observations which I find quite astounding. For example, I heard on several occasions that the Prime Minister prorogues the House; the Prime Minister wakes up one day and on a whim prorogues the House, it is over, it is done. That shows the fundamental lack of comprehension--I will be charitable--in terms of the shape of our system, the shape of our Constitution and the operations of the House.
Let us understand firstly that the Prime Minister cannot prorogue the House. In fact, the Prime Minister does not prorogue the House but it is the Governor General herself who prorogues the House. She makes a decision as to whether it is prorogued.
I know there are a number of doubting Conservatives on this point. I do not mean to be biblical or theological about this, but there are a number of people who are doubtful of this, as if the Governor General is without any powers or without any discretion. They say, “Show us a time when this has not happened”, but the fact of the matter is there are many times when a prorogation has been denied, many, many times, but of course members are not aware of those because that is a decision of the Governor General.
I am very glad that members opposite are listening closely. I hope they will learn something from this. When the Governor General refuses a dissolution, there is no public record of it. The only public record of prorogation is when it is granted by the Governor General. Let us understand that that is using the royal prerogative powers.
We are talking about a number of motions, amendments and subamendments which have been tabled. If we go back to the beginning of our parliamentary system, it was not intended to be constrained by rules. It was to be a very freewheeling place. About 400 years ago the whole principle of three readings of bills was created. That a bill should be read three times in a particular sequence paying special attention to it at each level was created to add order to the affairs of the state and to give Parliament a forum that was constant, was predictable and which worked.
If we proceed even more forward in history, there were many devices or procedures of Parliament which were added to give this place efficiency, to give it order, and to allow for public scrutiny of the operations here. Those, if we come forward far enough, were eventually codified because at another time they were simply the precedents or the conventions of the operations of Parliament. When they were codified they became what in modern day language are called the standing orders of this place.
The standing orders have evolved over time. They have been created to give efficiency to this place, to give a format to this place and to ensure that everybody understands what the rules are.
Indeed, we have a parliamentary committee which deals with the standing orders and is charged with examining them on an ongoing basis. We have rules which allow for the amendment of standing orders. After prorogation the standing orders can be examined and changed. That involves the members of all parties. It is not the exclusive purview or jurisdiction of the governing party; it is in fact an all party exercise.
Let us turn our minds to what we are debating tonight. The debate is on a subamendment, that the amendment be amended. It would delete certain legislation from the main motion, which is the government motion. In fact, the subamendment would delete Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003. I think in the popular press it is referred to as the redistribution bill.
It is an amazing revelation that the party opposite would want to delete that bill because that party at one time not that many months ago was unequivocally in favour of it. Those members loved it. One could say that they were separate and apart at that time. They were a house divided at that time, but now they have gone into this new union and what they were in favour of at that time, miraculously they are opposed to it today. I think it is living proof that one can assume two positions at the same time.