Mr. Speaker, I believe I did hear some applause from the gallery, so maybe I'll just make a reminder about that, in terms of the security protocols we have.
It is striking to me, listening to that member's incoherent efforts to distinguish between idea and ideology, that it is beyond ridiculous. It is not even worthy of refutation.
The member, though, cannot get through a series of questions without directly misstating the relationship between the executive and Parliament. He says that it is up to the executive to set the agenda here. We have government orders, which are a period of time in which the government has the ability to bring forward legislation, but the agenda of this place is set according to rules that are agreed on by members of Parliament. It is not up to the government to decide unilaterally when this House sits, when it does not sit, or what kinds of things are discussed and when.
The government is able to bring forward matters for discussion during periods that are prescribed within those Standing Orders. That a parliamentary secretary, an ostensibly senior member of a government, would get up to say that this is designed so the executive can set the agenda shows how fundamentally flawed the understanding of this executive is, how fundamentally flawed its approach is to the way this institution is supposed to work.
He spoke about rule changes being, allegedly, a point of conversation. Maybe I will have a chance to get to that in the next question.