I believe I am. Perhaps this changes slightly the approach I would take to this debate. And while I appreciate my colleague's efforts to withdraw his motion, I understand that from a procedural standpoint you need unanimous consent for a motion to be withdrawn. Since unanimous consent was not given, obviously we're still in debate.
I think this points to a very important factor here. While it may seem somewhat odd to members of this committee why we're still debating this, it points to the fact that, by procedure, we are following this debate in a correct manner, because we did not have unanimous consent—for whatever reason, one of the members decided to oppose the withdrawal of the motion--so therefore the debate surges on.
It speaks to the fact that procedures are put in place for a reason, and that's the whole essence of the comments of my colleagues and myself, to ensure that we follow proper procedures. Again, as I have beseeched the chair and clerk and analyst at the opening of my remarks, I do not believe there is any reference anywhere in the Standing Orders or in Marleau and Montpetit that suggests that a member should have the right, by majority vote—not even unanimous consent, but by majority vote—to cut off comments being delivered by any other parliamentarian.
Clearly, it doesn't seem to be democratic to me. It flies in the face of the spirit of democracy, frankly, Chair. I would suggest to you there is no reference anywhere to be found that would allow such a motion to be considered, let alone to be acted upon. So I would suggest to you, Chair, that if we perhaps don't have it in time for the suspension of this meeting prior to question period, I would suggest, when we resume debate, that you bring forward whatever reference materials you have found that suggest that Mr. Plamondon's motion was in order to begin with.