-that is fair ball. However, there may be other Hon. Members in the House who, in their respective caucuses, might want to latch on to that particular issue. I say that 1, as a private Member, want to have the same opportunity to respond to ministerial statements as I were the official spokesman for my Party on the subject under discussion in that particular statement on that given day. I do not introduce that as a matter of substance now but as a matter of example only to show that if individual Members of the House were to scrutinize those reports, they would find a number of items about which they would understandably have some reservations.
What is the solution? Is the solution to wait until I can have my way on every point? Is the solution to wait until every Hon. Member in this Chamber can have his or her way on every point? We know the answer to that. The answer is no. However, the answer, equally, must be that we must wait a reasonable amount of time until either every Member of the House or a healthy majority of the House comes to the realization that the proposed set of rule changes, though not perfection of themselves, are an improvement on the previous set of rules. I yielded on my objections, as cited in the example a moment ago, not because I am happy about what the committee is doing on that particular point, but because I recognize that, in the over-all, the committee was proposing to the House a package of rule changes which would create a situation eminently better than what is now or what was before we adopted the third report some months ago. That is the point.
Why the headlong rush? What is it we are bickering about? We are bickering today. Those of us who say in one mouthful, "Let us not allow it to founder on partisanship", are saying in the next mouthful that there are people in this Chamber who are procrastinating and filibustering. Those people who make that charge know full well that that is not the issue. The issue is not even whether we had an agreement in committee or what kind of an agreement it was. I can tell Hon. Members what agreement we had, and my good friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), reflected very accurately what the agreement was. However, that is besides the point. Suppose he is dead wrong. Suppose 1 am dead wrong on that issue. That is the mechanic. That is a bit of semantics.
The real issue is whether we want this experiment to work and whether we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is, whether we are prepared to take what action is
Report of Special Committee
necessary to have these reports or the substance of these reports, adopted by this Chamber.
As one member of the committee, I am prepared to go that route. If it takes being the brunt of some name-calling, if it takes a little healthy partisanship in this House, that is fair ball. We are not babes in the wood. We have had that before. However, let us not lose sight of the objective. Let us keep our eye on the ball. Surely the ball, the objective, is to get as much of the substance of those reports embodied in a set of future rules of this House as possible.
Now, how to do that? Let me set up two possibilities. One can use the old railroad approach. One can say to 282 Members of the House, ''You can have this now whether your like it or lump it. We will ram it down your throats". So, Hon. Members have not read the report. We happened to get a few reports in the House. I must admit that I have not yet read all the reports that have been tabled. I would say that there are Hon. Members in the Chamber who have not yet memorized the several reports from this committee. I would venture to say that. Therefore, we have two choices. Shall we use the old railroad approach and ram it down their throats, let them like it or lump it, or shall we say, "Let us take what reasonable steps are necessary to have these reports become the consensus of the three caucuses represented in this Chamber"? I advocate the latter.
Subtopic: STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE
Sub-subtopic: CONCURRENCE IN FIFTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE