Mr. Speaker, I am frankly getting a little concerned about how we got into this morass. I will try to bring some focus to the issue. The House understands that in September the procedure and House affairs committee passed a motion to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21, an additional 60 days.
On October 5, at a subsequent meeting of procedure and House affairs, another motion came before the committee. It was in order and was dealt with. It was voted upon and reported to the House. That was that the provisional Standing Orders become permanent.
The two decisions, one in September and one in October, in fact differed. They were a change of view. However, the committee made that decision and reported it to the House.
The member is saying that the decision taken on October 5 to make the provisional Standing Orders permanent violates some informal agreement, but that informal agreement was with regard to the September meeting motion to extend the provisional Standing Orders until November 21.
I believe that the government member is mixing apples and oranges here. The committee did make a decision with regard to making them permanent. It was an order. It was reported to the House and concurrence is now being moved. Why is the member saying that it was a violation of an agreement when in fact the committee made the decision?