Madam Speaker, I want to raise two points to follow up from the discussion on the points of order. First, the member for Kingston and the Islands is using stickers on his computer as a prop, but I will let you deal with that separately.
In response to the points of order raised by the member for Kingston and the Islands, he spoke about precedents set by the admittedly very wise, thoughtful and effective previous Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who said that time allocation for a day applied to a certain number of hours. That was based on the House. The precedent he cited the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle ruling on was not with respect to the length of a sitting day at committee; it was with respect to the sitting day in the House. The member for Kingston and the Islands is, as we have come to expect, incorrectly citing a precedent.
What we do not have is clarity on what constitutes a sitting day for the purposes of a committee. One of the reasons this is relevant is because committees sit for a much longer day. The sitting day of a committee effectively begins at 8:45 in the morning, which is the time when committees can start sitting. I am part of a committee that routinely sits until 9:30 at night and sometimes later in this time zone and even later if a member is on the east coast.
On the question of a sitting day, the framework used by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for establishing the length of a sitting day is based on how long the House sits, which is, on average, for a period of about five hours. However, if we take into consideration how long committees sit, it is actually more than 12 hours. That is the available sitting day for parliamentary committees. It is a different length of sitting day.
The member, in the motion, as well as in the arguments made by the member for Kingston and the Islands, is applying the sitting day of the House to a committee, but there are, in fact, different bodies with different lengths of days. The procedure that was used by the Speaker at that time was to say what constituted a sitting day in normal times in the context of that body, which was five hours for the House. Therefore, that is what is meant by a sitting day in the House.
If we were to apply the identical procedure to committees, using more correctly the precedent that was put forward by the Speaker, we would say that in a sitting day, the committees of the House function between 8:45 a.m. and 9:30 p.m., so that is 12 hours and 45 minutes. It would be a more correct application of that procedure to say that based on the ruling made by that member, it was a 12-hour, 45-minute period of time. That would be the correct application of the precedent that has been previously set by the Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, building off and correcting the points made by the member, who has stickers on his laptop, which violates the rules on props.
I wanted to also return briefly to my previous point of order. It was with respect to the issue of members' rights and privileges with respect to moving amendments at committees and the fact that I have a number of amendments of which I have given notice, for which I have support at the committee, that are in order and that have strong stakeholder support, but I may not now be able to move because the motion would prevent me from doing so.
I want to underline that we are dealing with, and maybe more, at least two distinct questions of order with respect to this motion. One was originally raised by the member for Lethbridge around the length of the day. The other was raised by me with respect to the issue of amendments at committees. Those are separate issues that do require separate rulings with respect to whether this particular motion is in order. When I first raised that, Madam Speaker, you said you would come back to that. We certainly have not heard anything with respect to a ruling on that second question. Therefore, the House does need to hear certainly with respect to that.
We have many issues, but these two in particular require rulings, especially the second one. We have had no indication of whether the Chair intends to rule on it. I agree with the suggestions of our deputy leader that this is one of those matters in which we need to have the clear information and data as well as the precise ruling coming from the Speaker. There is a lot of precedent in the House for when governments, or other parties or other members try to do things that are unprecedented, things that are controversial, that we have an opportunity for arguments to be heard and made.
Frankly, it is much more common for members to have the opportunity to come back to the House with arguments. There may be members who would like to reflect over the weekend on the particulars of the motion and make arguments to the House on those issues.
We actually did not see this motion until it was initially moved in the House. We had notice last night that the government intended to move a motion with respect to time allocation in committees. However, we did not know whether it was going to be for five hours or the 12 hours and 45 minutes I have mused about. We also did not know whether members would have the opportunity to move amendments or not.
It is very important that, reasonably, on a groundbreaking issue like this, which is just so important for the freedoms of parliamentarians and Canadians, that members be given the opportunity to come back to the House and share arguments, and for members who may not have been following the proceedings precisely, to note that motion and to bring arguments as well.
This is the way the House has always operated on these kinds of matters. It is important that we proceed in that way as well. The rights and privileges of this House and of its members, wherever they sit, need to be protected. Members are right to zealously defend their privileges. The principle of order in the House is based on the consent of members.
The Speaker is not imposed on the House by some external body. The Speaker is not directly elected or appointed by a monarch. The Speaker has had this beautiful, crucial role since the beginning of Parliament, which is as the voice of the House, as the servant of the House. The Speaker cannot seek to impose a particular interpretation of the rules that defies, clearly, the consensus of members.
If that attempt happens, if there is ever a way in which it seems like there is a risk of the Speaker's role moving away from those historic traditions, members have to stand up and defend the prerogatives of this House, the prerogatives of members and the appropriate relationship that is supposed to exist between the members of this House and the Chair.
Madam Speaker, we do so with eminent respect for your office and for the challenges in discharging it. There are many challenges. In fact, many early speakers of the House were executed by the monarch, which reflects the willingness of those speakers to serve the House—
