When I spoke at the last sitting of the committee in connection with the rules'
I did not intend there'should be any limitation of discussion on the part of any hon. member of the committee. I was concerned, of course, principally with the passing of the amendments that will have to be discussed. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) speaks of this as a preamble. It is not a preamble; it is simply the bases upon which the committee is being asked to pass amendments to the rules. When the amendments to the rules are being discussed there is nothing to prevent any hon. member of the committee from referring to what is a commentary on the reasons why the amendments were being asked for. But in view of the attitude of the hon. members who have spoken, which I think is the mind of the hon. members of the committee, I should be willing and agree that there should be the general discussion to which the leader of the opposition has referred. But I would point out that we are still on the first portion of the report, which is, if I may say so, the historical part of the reasons for the amendments. The matters before the committee, after all, are the amendments of the rules. That is the question for the committee. It is a matter wholly within the hands of the committee. Our committee have met and have reported. It is now within the judgment of the committee of the whole whether these few rules shall be amended or not. In so far as the committee is concerned it is entirely in the hands of the committee of the whole, which is now sitting. .