Mr. Speaker, I simply would like you to clarify for me what you just said.
Am I right to think that the motion, as passed, does not change the standing orders of the House of Commons, but is meant to provide guidance to the Chair? May I ask you also if the subject matter of the motion in question does not involve a number of existing practices in Canada, which would eliminate the need to look at what is done in the United Kingdom?
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you understand what I am asking. I will make it clearer. I would like you to tell me if this motion is simply meant to guide you in your rulings and does not change the standing orders of the House of Commons.
The motion refers to a practice followed in the United Kingdom. However, according to the ruling you just gave, foreign practices have to be taken into account only when there is no existing practice here, in Canada.
My question is this: since there is a practice that has been followed in Canada for a number of years with regard to the selection of motions at report stage, does what you just told us eliminate the need to refer to a foreign practice?