By changing the rules of Parliament, the opposition can make the government more accountable.

Yesterday, a motion passed in the House of Commons that will eliminate the use of so-called “ten-percenters” – the taxpayer funded flyers that MPs use to send partisan messages to voters outside their riding.

This is an important motion, in large part because it was directed to the Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy rather than to the government. After the embarrassment of prorogation, this is a victory for a Parliament that has struggled to hold the government to account.

But opposition members shouldn't stop here. While this minor but significant victory is still fresh, they should double down on a much wider series of motions that would direct the Speaker to change the rules governing parliamentary conduct.

The prime minister has made it clear that he is no friend of Parliament. Consequently, opposition MPs should work to elevate the stature of the Speaker, and governing bodies like the Board of Internal Economy. Together, they could play a more muscular role in determining the tenor of debate and asserting the primacy of Parliament over the executive.

The House enjoys enormous latitude to set its own rules – a source of real power for the opposition during a minority government. If it doesn't like the conduct of government MPs, it can vote for changes to the House rules and order the Speaker to enforce them.

Here are just two ideas:

First, the opposition should pass a motion directing the Speaker to schedule weekly ninety-minute take-note debates on matters of ongoing public concern and explicitly direct the prime minister and Cabinet to attend. The Speaker could canvas House leaders to reach consensus on the topic for discussion or else grant each party in rotation the opportunity to stage a debate on the topic of its choice.

Second, the opposition should work to severely limit the use of partisan polling. Like “ten-percenters,” partisan polling is another perk that is corrosive to the political system and is largely funded by taxpayers. A motion could direct House leaders to table in Parliament any public opinion data collected by their parties in the preceding week and direct the Board of Internal Economy to prohibit the use of constituency budgets for such research.

If the government ignores these new rules, the opposition shouldn't hesitate to set the stage for a high political drama by invoking its power to censure its members, including the prime minister, or else cite the offenders for contempt of Parliament.

These are both feasible proposals, but they are only two of many. The success of yesterday's motion should spur opposition parties into action. They should begin by drawing up a long list of micro-reforms that, taken together, could help to change the culture of Parliament by changing its rules. This would be a slow, tactical game, but, properly executed, it will resonate with Canadians and add up to the one parliamentary virtue that has been in short supply: principled leadership.