Mr. Speaker, I must say first that the patience you are showing with these ongoing points of order, put spuriously maybe, is truly admirable.
To begin with, I would suggest that this is really the same point of order that you dealt with earlier on the question of “should” and “ought”, and the fact that the motion of October 24 has already been dealt with.
I want to quote from Marleau and Montpetit at page 476. It says:
While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never seen so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to attempts made to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are not very conclusive.
My hon. friend has quoted from some other parts of the same section.
I think there is a key thing to this question, but I want to first say that the motion of October 24 has been disposed of by the House. Second, the substance of that motion was very different. The key substance of the motion really had to do with whether there ought to be an implementation plan. The motion in fact used the word, “should”, that there should be an implementation plan.
My hon. friend has quoted very selectively from the Oxford Dictionary . Let me provide a little more illumination on the definition of the word, “should”. It does not just say it is to express a duty. In defining the second definition of “should”, it says, “to express a duty, obligation, or likelihood”, and then it says equals “ought”. In other words, it means ought. It does not mean that we have to do this or that we are compelled to do this. It means that we likely or ought to do this. As you said, Mr. Speaker, it is the Oxford Dictionary .
It seems to me that they are trying to find all kinds of reasons to delay and avoid this debate.