Procedure and House Affairs committee  Of course, this is presented to you as a draft. So you can decide whether you think it is acceptable or not. If other changes have to be made or a few provisions have to be restored in the current version, if that is what you prefer, it will be up to you to decide. In fact, this proposal is there just to help you consider what you would like to do about the Standing Orders.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  You will decide what to do with this, in the end.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In the beginning, I consulted leaders' offices. I provided them with a few drafts to find out whether they agreed with my objective and whether I have kept my word not to amend Standing Orders without letting you know.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Once again, I assume that most members will prefer there to be consensus. In the past, adopting changes to the Standing Orders has sometimes been based on the consent of a majority. When, in the early 1970s, time limits were set for debates on bills, that was adopted by the majority.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The initiative was my own. It was done with the idea—again, as I mentioned earlier—to be proactive in assisting the members. The 70 changes you may be referring to are the ones in yellow highlights. We recognize that they represent changes, and that's why they are deliberately highlighted that way.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I consulted with their chiefs of staff.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  No one from any of those three you mentioned has directed any aspect of this project. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this was a good faith initiative on my own part. I would not have taken it this far had I not been in consultation with the chiefs of staff of the government House leader, the opposition House leader and the NDP House leader.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  They're new.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The notion really is that it's easier to understand if you put something in the active voice as opposed to the passive voice. I remember once there was an exercise in the mid-eighties for the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and there was also some exercise in reviewing the rules of the Senate.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Well, when the project was actually done with the rules of the Senate, the index, which was originally 102 pages long, was reduced to 22 pages. The reason was that there was an integration of the marginal notes and the headers and subheaders that you find in the table of contents.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It's certainly an option for you.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Again, I'm here to be of help, but the decisions that you make are in fact your decisions.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  There is a debate that you normally have early in the new Parliament where you can discuss this. If you feel this project has been useful, you can raise it. Because you have the authority under your own mandate, you can pursue this project further to determine whether you think it appropriate to adopt these changes either on a permanent or temporary basis, to see whether they help you understand the rules and practices of the House.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  For me, in the attempt to be a proactive service to the members.... Whenever you read the Standing Orders and you see the word “pursuant”, you always think, “Okay, is this going to trip me up?” Then, this morning, I was just reviewing that again. I went to one “pursuant”—so I do check these—and it referred me to two other “pursuants”.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Well, the other chamber of this House has done this. That project actually began in 1998—I'm not particularly trying to wish this on myself here—and didn't end until 2012.