I thank the hon. member for Wascana for that very helpful advice. It is something that had occurred to me. Members can see why I am so interested in the point that is being raised.
In any event, I thank the hon. government House leader and the hon. member for Vancouver East for their submissions on this issue.
I certainly agree that it is one that has to be resolved immediately, as suggested by the hon. member for Wascana.
I will give a preliminary ruling now which is that, in my view, this motion is out of order, and I will not permit it to be moved tomorrow. Someone will have to choose something else for tomorrow's supply day and members can sort that out.
In any event, I will give reasons for my decision on this matter in due course. I will come back with something more reasoned. However, I point out that I think, as the government House leader has said, even if this kind of motion could be moved, as a preliminary observation on the matter, there is no provision whatsoever for debate on the bill; it would be deemed adopted at all stages now, which, as the hon. House leader has pointed out, could be done by unanimous consent. However, even on time allocation or on closure, there is provision for debate for a certain specified time; it may be short, but there is a debate. With this motion, there is none and so, the debate would be on the motion only, not on the bill. Accordingly, in my view, the bill goes beyond what is permitted for supply debates.
I will give a more elaborate reason outlining my views on this matter to the House in due course but, at least for tomorrow, we will not proceed with that.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.