That is a matter of judgment, but it does not affect the point of order. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) earlier in the discussion, when an attempt was made to move an amendment, had the following to say, as reported in Hansard of March 8, at page 1291:
Mr. Rhodes: That is the only principle.
The point whether this bank should be publicly or privately owned as well as questions respecting the numerous other details incidental to the bill are matters of detail which can be dealt with by way of amendment in the regular course as we proceed in committee on banking and commerce, or in committee of the whole house, or upon motion on the third reading of the bill.
With that understanding we then postponed the amendment. Now we find apparently that there has come a change in the mind of the government and that the Minister of Finance was quite wrong and that no amendment can be made on the third reading of the bill, looking to the public ownership and control of the bank. I submit that it is a very serious matter if, on great general principles, we are not permitted to have any voice when it comes to the third reading of a bill such as this. I contend, with regard to this particular point of order, that there is a very specific thing which we ask that the committee should do. It is quite true the Prime Minister thinks it is not necessary; that is natural. Some of us think it is necessary, but it is a specific thing which we ask should be done, and I submit on a point of order that this motion is really in order.