Mr. Speaker, we almost applauded on this side, because we think the government House leader actually made our point.
The first point the government House leader made was that it is a different motion. He also referenced the fact that it is related to other online activity, as part of this motion that is being presented today, which does not configure at all in the other motion he was mentioning.
Second, and I am quoting from O'Brien, and the government House leader kind of glossed over this, it is important to read what O'Brien and Bosc also says:
...the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.
The government House leader kind of glossed over this. It is from O'Brien and Bosc, which is really our procedural bible:
The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed.
We are not talking about the 17th century here. We are talking about 2014 in Canada.
The third point is probably the most conclusive. We have talked about the ancient process. The government House leader referenced something from the 17th or 18th century. I certainly appreciate his reference of historical fact, but it does not have relevance to our standing orders today.
The third point, again from O'Brien and Bosc:
While the rule of anticipation is part of the Standing Orders in the British House of Commons, it has never been so in the Canadian House of Commons. Furthermore, references to past attempts to apply this British rule to Canadian practice are inconclusive.
I certainly agree that if the government House leader was standing in the British House of Commons, he might be right, but he is standing in the Canadian House of Commons, it is 2014, and this motion is very much in order.