I wonder if the member for Elk Island does not think the whip is the boss. Anyway, I will let Reform members discuss their caucus disagreements. It seems there is a lot of disagreement if they do not think anyone is running the show.
Let me go back to the motion proposed by the House leader for the government which I believe to be quite innovative. One of the important things about this motion is that it saves a lot of money to the taxpayers of Canada. I suppose if a bill had been terminated at second reading the economies are somewhat smaller, although they are there as well because there is sometimes quite a step to reach that level.
Nevertheless, for a bill or another initiative that has gone to committee and which has received the input of Canadians from all across the country testifying either here or elsewhere in Canada, for the people who have submitted briefs and so on, there are economies in not repeating the exercise a second time on an identical piece of legislation.
Groups who have already made representations, who have already submitted briefs to parliamentarians, would not have to repeat the whole process a second time for a bill that is identical to the one that was considered during the previous session.
To protect parliamentarians, the motion states clearly that the bill has to be identical to the one from the previous session, as verified by the office of the clerk of the House of Commons, otherwise this new condition would not be applicable.
You can see the validity and the objectivity of this whole exercise. I am sure members opposite could find it in their hearts to support such an initiative.
This has been the subject of consultation among political parties in the House. I cannot discuss the details of the consultation because that is not normally done when consultation is between House leaders. However, I can say that consultation between the House leadership teams, leaders, whips and so on, of each political party has taken place. People were contacted. The substance of what was there was described to the officials of political parties across the way. Therefore consultation had taken place previously.
For those who say or pretend this has been brought on at the last minute, it is not so. It does not reflect reality.
The Hill Times of February 26 had a long story on this. It has been known for days through that medium, through the consultation that we had and so on. Consultation has taken place. Only bills that are identical to those-