The first two examples you cited—the McGrath commission and the one under the Chrétien government—involved having a report done up on the assumption that some detailed research was required. It's a subject that requires detailed work.
With regard to the motion to change how the Speaker is elected, what happened on that occasion.... This, I think, is the model that could work in this situation. It was a private member's motion. It was moved by me and sent to this committee. The committee reviewed the proposed standing order changes and then it wrote back. I just happen to have its report right here, as a matter of fact. The 21st report of the procedure and House affairs committee stated:
The Election of the Speaker is a matter for all Members to decide. The Committee does not oppose nor endorse motion M-489 brought forward by Mr. Scott Reid and feels that the entire membership of the House of Commons should have the opportunity to vote on whether or not to change the Standing Orders in the manner suggested by M-489.
In order to accomplish this purpose of having a vote in the House, the Committee recommends that Standing Order 4 be amended as follows:
What followed was the suggested motion to change the House standing order.
The point about all this was that it allowed the members to make the decision. What actually happened in the House was that it was a completely free vote and every single party in the House divided—even the Green Party. At least one member of the Greens, the Bloc, the NDP and also the Liberals and the Conservatives went on either side. The result was that it passed by some number, obviously. I can't remember the exact number. I think that's a good model here.