With respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is appropriate for us to start provoking each other on this. I do not think it is helpful.
First, I hope everyone opts in. If that occurs, there will not be a group of people who will have opted out. The people here are adults and they can do that even though I do not think they should.
The hon. member from Calgary started with the remark that it was disingenuous of me to have made my previous response. I will let colleagues judge on the appropriateness of this. He alleges that the standing orders somehow put us in a conflict of interest if we vote on the bill. The hon. member has now been here for some time and he knows that what he said is not correct. He knows that what the rules reference private bills, the incorporation of companies and so on in which members have private interests.
Speakers have ruled from time immemorial that our voting on estimates, supply and everything else that gives us our salary does not form part of that. We all know that around here. The hon. member I am sure knows that as well.
The hon. member said that we should extricate ourselves from the process. That is exactly what the recommendation of the Lumley Commission wants us to do, and that is exactly what the action of voting for this bill would create.
I could argue with the argument presented by the hon. member to the nth degree to show how inappropriate it was. In fact the mere act of extricating ourselves for another process would constitute a conflict of interest under the rules he has just enunciated. That is why he cannot use that argument. Yes, I am in favour of using objective measures in the future that would make it such that these kinds of votes and debates would become unnecessary. Mr. Lumley spoke extensively about that. However our initiating that process, or our voting on the bill today and all of these measures do not constitute a conflict of interest. That is not correct.