If I may continue with my comments, I'll speak to Karen's point of order. Yes, there was a motion that was defeated to suspend at one o'clock. That is the motion that I believe Mr. Hill or Mr. Reid brought forward, not to adjourn but to suspend, to move to another topic, to suspend debate on this particular topic, and that was overturned. So I can only assume, then, that the members of this committee wanted to continue discussing it.
But now we have debate on whether or not the motion brought forward by Monsieur Plamondon was in order and whether it was correct. I suggest to you, Chair, in all due respect, that it really wasn't. While perhaps technically in order—and I would still like to get clarification on that—it certainly was not in keeping with the spirit of the practices and procedures of this House.
I've always believed that, like it or not, all members who indicate a willingness to debate issues have the full opportunity to do so, and to do so at length from time to time. Yet it appears that the motion that was voted on and upheld by the chair curtailed that ability for members. It in effect said that regardless of the willingness or the intent of a speaker to make comment on an item of debate, they would not be allowed to do so. They would be, in effect, prevented from doing so.
I would definitely like to see indication, whether it be in the Standing Orders or in Marleau and Montpetit, of some reference to that, that speakers who wish to engage in debate cannot do so by majority vote at a committee level. I would love to see where that is indicated in any form, just because I do not believe, as I mentioned, that it was the intention of anyone who was involved in either writing the Standing Orders of this House or the procedures and practices. I believe all members should be allowed to say their piece and say it without disruption, not only without disruption but without being curtailed and cut off. That's in effect what has happened here.
So although I appreciate the ruling, again I would appreciate some clarification and some definitive proof that the ruling was a correct one, because as my colleague Mr. Hill said, that is setting, in my view, a very dangerous precedent. If we now have a system or procedure in place that allows any member at a committee to introduce a motion that in effect would have the ability and the right to cut off debate by any other member, I do not believe that is the intention of anyone who is involved with writing procedures.
Mr. Owen once spoke earlier this afternoon about natural justice. Well, I would say the natural justice with respect to democracy is that debate should not be curtailed. If, however, there are set rules, whether that be in committee or in debate of the House, that state there are parameters and time limits for any debate, so be it; everyone knows the rules going in. But for example, when we introduce a piece of legislation in the House and political parties have the opportunity to put up speakers, I have yet to see any practice that says no, I'm sorry, you can't put up more than this amount of speakers. It's undemocratic. Every member has the ability to stand up and speak, whether it be debate or in comment on a particular piece of legislation.
And we are talking about a piece of potential legislation here. We're talking about a private member's bill that was brought forward, that was ultimately deemed to be non-votable by a subcommittee. The appeal mechanism kicked in. The sponsor of that bill then brought his proposed legislation back to this committee for discussion. After approximately two hours of discussion on the subcommittee's ruling, which was to deem this private member's bill non-votable, a motion was brought forward to cut off debate, to cut off discussion.
Mr. Chair, by all my standards, by all my knowledge of how this place works, not only is this undemocratic, I would suggest to you it's unparliamentary. I would suggest also, Mr. Chair, that it is against the common practices of this House.
Once again—and I will continue to ask, Chair—I would very much like to see any reference, in any writings of this place that deals with Standing Orders or procedures and practices, where it states that it is an allowable function for another member to bring forward a motion that would in effect cut off my right to speak on a subject.
If we can find that reference, Chair, and it's something that's been in practice, obviously I would withdraw my comments and say, fine, I may not like it, but it's something that I have to live by. It's a procedure that has been tried and tested over the years, and found to be in order. I would merely say fine, I object.
Perhaps I would even advise at that point in time, Mr. Chair, that we revisit the particular procedure or practice, indicating that a member would be able to have his voice in effect silenced just because the combined opposition members determined that they don't like to hear what a particular member is saying.
In fact, that's what it comes down to, doesn't it? It comes down to the fact that regardless of topic or point of view, there's an ability for the opposition members—should they be the majority, which they always are in committee—to stifle debate, or to cut off comments that they may not like to hear or that they may not want Canadians to hear. By anyone's standards, Chair, I think that is highly undemocratic. I suggest that the majority of Canadians, if posed with that very simple scenario, would agree with me.
Now, members opposite clearly may not like what I have to say, or maybe they think this is nothing more than a procedural tactic. Frankly, if they wish to make those comments, if they feel that way, that's a fair comment.