Thank you, Chair.
Further to Mr. Hill's comments, for the record, I would like to inquire of the chair and the clerk as to the propriety of the motion that was voted on by Monsieur Plamondon, wherein if a majority of the committee votes to cut off debate and questions, they have the right to do so. Frankly, I'm not sure whether or not it is allowed under the Standing Orders. But perhaps it is, and I appreciate the ruling of the chair.
I would like to get some clarification on that at some point. I may be speaking for a while, so perhaps while I do so, you can provide me with that clarity by checking the Standing Orders and the Marleau and Montpetit House of Commons Procedure and Practice.
It would appear to me, Chair, that it's not really a democratic function to curtail debate by members of the committee when they wish to get comments on the record or to at least participate in the debate itself.
Obviously, Chair, one could argue that procedural techniques or procedural tactics to delay or prolong debate may be something that members do not agree with. But the fact of the matter is that procedures and practices were put into place for a reason. The reason is that over time, over the last 100 years, there has been a system of practices and procedures within this House that seems to work in a democratic manner for the benefit of all parliamentarians and, of course, those whom they represent.
I would sincerely appreciate some clarification as to whether or not, in the spirit of democracy, the motion brought forward and subsequently voted on was in order.
Mr. Hill made a very valid point. If this is in fact allowed to stand and if this is in fact approved under the procedures and practices of this House, it would mean that at any time, in any committee, fulsome debate could be halted if the majority of the committee, in this case the combined opposition, wished to absolutely curtail debate on any subject. They would have the ability to do so merely by bringing forward a simple motion that says we are to call the question or in effect end debate.
I'm not sure, Chair, if the intent is in keeping with the spirit of the procedures and practices of this House. I do not personally believe that when Messrs. Marleau and Montpetit wrote their very well-received book on procedures and practices, what they had in mind was a practice in this House that would allow the curtailing of any debate.