In an ideal world — or, at least, a less time-crunched Commons timeline — MPs would have longer than three weeks to collectively consider the pros and cons of Liberal first-time MP Frank Baylis’ late-sitting bid to rebalance the parliamentary power dynamics by rewriting the House rulebook.

Among the changes proposed in his motion, which is set to make its official second-reading debut when the Chamber reopens for business on Monday morning:

Restore the right of the speaker to control the daily back-and-forth known as question period by abolishing the current practice of allowing parties to submit suggested speakers’ list and reverting to the original practice of leaving it to the “sole discretion” of the chair to recognize MPs, albeit with “consideration” given to prioritizing questions from opposition and independent MPs, as well as to party leaders during the opening round.

Set up a parallel debating chamber — tentatively styled as “the Hall,” although the motion includes a process to allow MPs to choose its permanent name — which would follow the same sitting hours as the current House of Commons, with breaks for question period, votes and other must-attend business in the main chamber. It would devote two to four hours a day dealing with private members’ bills and motions, and could also host take-note and emergency debates.

Establish a new process to allow MPs presenting petitions with more than 70,000 signatures to request a take-note debate on the issue, which would be reviewed by an all-party subcommittee and, if approved, take place in the Hall.

Hold Chamber-wide secret ballot elections to fill committee chair positions, and protecting committee members from being replaced midway through a session without their express consent, provided that they don’t resign their seat or leave the party to which that seat has been allocated.

Given the sweeping nature of the new mechanics that his motion would create, it’s hard not to see Baylis’ pitch as a near-total reboot of the current parliamentary platform.

But as any Process Nerd who has been keeping tabs on the perennial debate over tweaking the system can attest, they’ve all come up for consideration, at least in passing and, in some cases, in depth, at the procedure and House affairs committee, as well as in other venues.

“There’s nothing new here,” Baylis told iPolitics.

“By our standards, it’s a lot, but by the standards of bringing us up to speed with everyone else” — that would, of course, be the rest of the Westminster parliamentary family — “it’s nothing.”

It also has support from all sides of the House, which may or may not increase its chance of success: while it was written “with the collaboration” of MPs from every party but the Bloc Québécois, with some of those MPs actually drafting sections covering areas in which they had a particular interest or expertise.

Even so, Baylis says, even some colleagues who are supportive of the overall goal — which, he stresses, is, in a nutshell, “democratic empowerment” by boosting civility by reaffirming the authority of the speaker over the proceedings and giving citizens the power to trigger debates via petition — are “very nervous” about the scope.

“They’re saying “It’s a lot, Frank, it’s too much,’” he told iPolitics. His response? “Yeah, I know, the way we do things in Ottawa, they want to study it another 10 years, but I think we’re ready to make a decision.”

The revamp of the overall Commons schedule — which would eliminate the Friday sitting in the main chamber, although business would continue in the Hall — might also make for a difficult sell, as opposition members roundly rejected the same suggestion from the Liberals as part of its initial attempt to make the Hill more “family-friendly”.

In any case, Baylis will be spending the next few weeks talking to his fellow Commons denizens from all sides of the aisle.

He also makes it clear that he’s open to tweaks — or “friendly amendments,” as House jargon puts it — and based on the early feedback he’s gotten, he’s already working on a revised version that he’s prepared to bring forward during the second round of debate.

Securing that final hour in the House spotlight may require negotiation as well, however.

Under current House rules, it could take weeks for his name to make it back to the top of the private members’ priority rotation, which, given the ever-diminishing time remaining on the clock, could leave his motion in limbo when MPs break for the summer recess, which, given the looming election, would effectively kill it.

If, however, he can convince a colleague with an earlier slot to swap places with him, he may just be able to get the motion back before the House before the closing bell, which would give it a good shot at being added to the voting queue as soon as the second hour of debate winds down.

Baylis has pre-emptively taken steps to get it on the radar at procedure and House affairs, which could examine it during the interval between the first and second hours, which, as he puts it, gives him “two horses in the race.”

And unlike Conservative MP Michael Chong’s Reform Act, which had to work its way through the full House process and get a final sign-off from the Senate before becoming the law of the land, second-reading approval is all it would take for the new rules to take effect at the start of the next parliament.

Read the full motion here.