OTTAWA -- The federal Conservatives and NDP are proposing a special committee in a bid to end a stand-off over possible changes to House of Commons rules.

In an open letter sent to Government House Leader Bardish Chagger, the opposition House leaders suggest looking back to former prime minister Jean Chretien's time in office.

"Mr. Chretien's government created the special committee on the modernization and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons that sat from 2001-2003," Conservative Candice Bergen and New Democrat Murray Rankin wrote to Chagger.

"The membership of the committee was made up of the deputy Speaker and one member from each of the recognized parties. The [committee] operated by all-party consensus and managed to present six reports to the House."

Bergen and Murray reiterated their frustration with the government's refusal to commit to avoid changing the rules without consensus from the other parties.

"Without your clear commitment to respect that tradition, a good-faith study is impossible," they wrote.

"We are always open to thoughtful discussions about improving the way the House of Commons operates. That being said, we also recognize the strong historical precedent that has been established for making significant changes to the Standing Orders [House rules]. As you know, history has demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of substantial Standing Order changes only occurred after receiving consent from all parties."

The letter was released minutes before the committee tasked with studying the Liberal proposal was about to resume after being stalled for days.

The procedure and House affairs committee saw a week-long filibuster after opposition MPs started talking for as long as possible, in an effort to delay the committee’s work in protest over the Liberal proposal.

While the House was on break last week, the committee resumed briefly on Monday before suspending so the Liberal, Conservative and NDP House leaders could negotiate an end to the stalemate.

Chagger published a discussion paper last month looking at reforming the rules of the House or the standing orders. Now the sticking point is whether the Liberals will use their majority to force through changes to the rules of the House, or whether they'll follow longstanding tradition and try to reach consensus with the other parties.

Some of the potential changes include limiting the procedural tools -- like filibusters -- that opposition parties use to slow down legislation they oppose. Under a majority government, the opposition usually has very little ability to derail the government's agenda, but forcing procedural votes to slow down a bill gives voice to their discontent. It can also prompt the government to negotiate in order to speed up the process.

Some of the other possible changes include moving to one question period a week focused on the prime minister and eliminating Friday sittings by redistributing those hours over other days.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took the unusual step Wednesday of handling all the questions during question period himself. Generally, the prime minister responds to questions from party leaders or, if they're absent, from the MP who takes their turn. The result was essentially a sample of what MPs could expect were they to move to a prime minister's question period as proposed in Chagger's discussion paper.

"I'd like to thank the prime minister for taking so many questions today," said New Democrat MP David Christopherson, one of the MPs behind the committee filibuster.

"I'd also like to point out again that he's managed to do this without changing a single rule -- no need to unilaterally use his power to ram through the changes. He was able to use the existing rules. Will he commit to this place that he'll continue that spirit of cooperation and agree he'll not use his unilateral majority to change the rules in this place and change how democracy works?"

Trudeau said he heard Christopherson's "energy, enthusiasm and passion."

"The question I think we can all agree on in this place ... is what will that change look like? How do we change this place so it becomes better able to serve? And that's why I look forward very much to hearing the suggestions and contributions of the members opposite of how we can better serve Canadians," he said.

Earlier Wednesday, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said that tradition of reaching all-party consensus on rule changes was respected by all previous governments, including under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

"You have to work with the other parties," Mulcair said following the parties' weekly caucus meetings.

"You cannot unilaterally change the rules of Parliament to your benefit, especially when you already have a majority.... As long as they're going to remain pigheaded about this, well, then we're going to continue doing our jobs of using every tool in the procedural toolbox to block this thing until such time as the Liberals renounce ... acting unilaterally."

Some of the potential changes include limiting the procedural tools -- like filibusters -- that opposition parties use to slow down legislation they oppose. Under a majority government, the opposition usually has very little ability to derail the government's agenda, but forcing procedural votes to slow down a bill gives voice to their discontent. It can also prompt the government to negotiate in order to speed up the process.

But Chagger has refused to commit to trying to reach consensus about the proposed changes, leading to repeated questions in the House. The minister has instead asserted the Liberals had promised a new approach to politics.

Chagger said the government encourages all MPs to "have this very important conversation."

"However, we will not give a veto to the Conservatives over our campaign commitments," she said.

The government may also be facing another brewing committee controversy after MPs noted in question period that opposition members of the ethics committee tried to invite Treasury Board President Scott Brison to explain why he postponed changes to federal access-to-information laws. New Democrat MP Daniel Blaikie said the Liberal majority on the committee voted down the motion.