Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Mr. Guimond does not know everything about everything. I withdraw my comments.
Mr. Chairman, if we read the Standing Orders, they allow the person who tabled the bill to come and address the committee. I would like a decision on this point. Does that prevent us from studying the decision?
I feel this is a false debate. The committee meets, and it would not even have the opportunity to know whether or not it is acceptable! Mr. Chairman, you yourself said that the committee was master of its own destiny. I believe the committee has this power.
The Standing Orders do not provide for the decision being made within five days. The Standing Orders indicate that the challenge to the decision must be presented. That is what the Standing Orders say; this does not prevent us from doing the work that must be done.
I can guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, that I have no intention of presenting a string of experts in order to delay the process. However, Mr. Paquette has quite legitimately given the names of experts and has referred to legal decisions that were handed down in Quebec. With all of this new information, it is normal that the committee should be able to question these people, or other people.
I reject Mr. Guimond's argument, with all due respect, and I say that the committee has this power. We are not here merely to say yes or no, and to do so without information. We have the power to go out and get the information ourselves, because the subcommittee sat in camera. We cannot know what it based its decision on. We have the right to do what must be done in order to make an enlightened decision, otherwise our decision will be made blindly.
It is not enough to accept that the debate should happen in the House of Commons. We have the right to have it within the committee when we make a decision. If we listen to Mr. Guimond, we will prevent the committee from having a debate and making an enlightened decision. I think that that goes against the Standing Orders.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.