I think I have heard enough. I thank all three members who spoke on this matter. Rather than reserve on it, I think it is important to give reasons now rather than later in the day.
I note that Standing Order 73(1) states very clearly: "-a Minister of the Crown may, after notifying representatives of the opposition parties-" for any government bill, as was indicated. This is pretty all inclusive. The hon. member for St. Albert has a point in that this appears to be the first time that Standing Order 73 has been used for a ways and means bill.
Standing Order 73, however, does not alter directly the practice of the limits imposed by the ways and means motion. The ways and means motion was adopted by the House and the committee, as members will appreciate, is bound by it. Anything in the bill not directly related to the ways and means motion, however, would be open to the larger scope of amendments envisioned by Standing Order 73.
I might add that it is not unusual for ways and means bills to contain matters which are outside the ways and means motion. This apparently has happened dozens of times. Those matters can be amended without reference to the terms of the ways and means motion. In that case, Standing Order 73 seems to be an applicable use and not necessarily an abuse, as was argued by the hon. member for St. Albert.
Accordingly, the Chair finds, despite a most eloquent and carefully thought out argument by the hon. member for St. Albert, that Standing Order 73 would appear to govern in this situation.